JUDGMENT S.G. Pandit, J. - Both the insurer and the claimants are in appeal and cross-objection assailing the judgment and award dated 18.02.2012 in MVC No.724/2011 on the file of the Member, MACT-XII, Ballari (for short, 'Tribunal'). 2. The insurer is in appeal contending that it is self-fall from motor cycle. As such, the insurance company would not be liable for payment of any compensation. Whereas the claimants are in crossobjection praying for enhancement of compensation not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Sharanaiah Swamy was proceeding as a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-34/U-6057 and respondent No.1-Ayyappa was riding the said motor cycle. It is stated that on 6.2.2011 in the mid-night, they were proceeding from Bagewadi towards Kudadral village near Kesarakuni Camp cross. When they reached Picheswara land, respondent No.1 who was riding the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner lost control over the motor cycle. Due to which, both rider and pillion rider fell down, in which the deceased Sharanaiah Swamy sustained severe injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to VIMS Hospital, Bellary; later he was shifted to Phoenix Hospital, Bangalore where he succumbed to the injuries on 7.2.2011. It is stated that the deceased was aged 30 years, running photo studio and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. 4. On issuance of notice, respondents No.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1-rider of the motor cycle failed to file any objections, whereas respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed its objections denying the claim petition averments. As the respondent No.1 failed to file objections, insurer sought permission to take all grounds available under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Insurance Company also contended that since the rider and pillion rider of the motor cycle in question are related, they managed to foist a false case on untenable grounds. There are several material discrepancies and there is no truth in the claim. The claimants have suppressed the material truths. It also contended that the Post Mortem report was managed to get in collusion with the police concerned. Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. In support of the claim, the claimant No.1 examined as PW1 and one eye-witness was examined as PW2 apart from marking the documents as per Exs.P1 to P16. It also contended that the Post Mortem report was managed to get in collusion with the police concerned. Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. In support of the claim, the claimant No.1 examined as PW1 and one eye-witness was examined as PW2 apart from marking the documents as per Exs.P1 to P16. The respondent No.2-insurer examined its officer as RW1 apart from marking one document as Ex.R1-copy of policy. The Tribunal on assessing the entire material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.7,80,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization on the following heads. Funeral and last obsequies Rs.10,000 Medical and transportation expenditure Rs.25,000 Loss of consortium to the 1st claimant Rs.20,000 Loss of estate Rs.5,000 Loss of dependency to all claimants Rs.7,20,000 Total Rs.7,80,000 6. While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and adopting multiplier of 16 taking the age of the deceased as 31 years. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants are before this Court in cross-objection praying for enhancement of compensation, whereas the insurer is before this Court in appeal praying for absolving it from liability contending that the deceased in the hospital record has stated that it is self-fall from bike. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and learned counsel for the insurance company and perused the original records. 8. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration of the contention of the Insurance Company that when it is the case of the claimants that the deceased suffered grievous injuries due to self-fall and subsequently, succumbed to the injuries, the Tribunal could not have fastened liability on the Insurance Company. Learned counsel particularly refers to Ex.P8 and P10-discharge summary and case sheet, wherein it shows that the hospital authorities have recorded that the deceased had gone to hospital with the alleged history of self-fall from two-wheeler. When they themselves stated that the deceased and injured have self-fall from bike due to own negligence, the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay any compensation. Thus, he prays for absolving the Insurance Company from its liability. 9. When they themselves stated that the deceased and injured have self-fall from bike due to own negligence, the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay any compensation. Thus, he prays for absolving the Insurance Company from its liability. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that even though the Insurance Company contended that they are not liable to pay any compensation since the deceased was self-fallen from motorcycle, they have failed to prove their contention. Ex.P8 and P10 even though discloses that the deceased had gone to hospital with the history of self-fall from bike, there is no material on record to say that he was riding the motor cycle. He submitted that the deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider, whereas respondent No.1 was rider of the motor cycle. He invites the attention of this Court to Ex.P1-FIR, wherein it clearly states that respondent No.1 was riding the motor cycle and the deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. 10. With regard to quantum of compensation, the learned counsel submits that the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month which is on the lower side. He submits that the deceased was running a Photo Studio and thereby earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. Thus, the income assessed by the tribunal needs to be modified. It is his submission that the Tribunal failed to award any compensation towards future prospects which the claimants would be entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income. It is submitted that the deceased was aged 30 years as on the date of the accident and PM report records the age of the deceased as 30 years, but the Tribunal without there being any reason or the document to show that the deceased was aged 31 years, had taken the age of the deceased as 31 years and adopted multiplier of 16 which is wholly erroneous. Since the age of the deceased is 30 years, multiplier of 17 has to be adopted. Further, learned counsel submits that the claimant No.5, father of the deceased died during the pendency of the appeal. Since the age of the deceased is 30 years, multiplier of 17 has to be adopted. Further, learned counsel submits that the claimant No.5, father of the deceased died during the pendency of the appeal. Claimants No.2 and 3 are children of the deceased and claimant No.4 is mother of the deceased, they would be entitled for parental and filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanuram and Others, (2018) ACJ 2782 . Thus, he prays for enhancement of compensation. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record including trial Court records, the following points would fall for consideration: a) Whether the Insurance Company has made out a case to entertain its appeal and absolve it from liability? b) Whether the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- is proper and correct? c) Whether the claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation including future prospects? d) Whether the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal at 16 taking the age of the deceased as 31 years is proper and correct? Our answer to the above points would be in the negative for points (a), (b) and (d) and affirmative for point (c). 12. The accident had taken place on 6.2.2011 when the deceased as pillion rider along with one Ayyappa was proceeding on a Motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-34/U-6057 from Bagewadi towards Kudadral village. It is specific case of the claimants that respondent No.1-rider of the motor cycle was riding the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the motor cycle, due to which both fell down and sustained severe injuries. During the course of treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 7.2.2011. Ex.P8 and P10-summary sheet issued by VIMS, Ballari records that the deceased was taken to hospital with the alleged history of self-fall from bike; whereas Ex.P10-case sheet from NIMHANS records that the deceased was taken to NIMHANS with the alleged history of two wheeler skid and fall at Siraguppa, near Ballari. Ex.P1-FIR records that respondent No.1 was riding the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the motor cycle, due to which both rider and pillion rider fell down, in which the deceased sustained severe injuries. Ex.P1-FIR records that respondent No.1 was riding the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the motor cycle, due to which both rider and pillion rider fell down, in which the deceased sustained severe injuries. Even though the Insurance Company had taken contention that it is self-fall injuries while the deceased was riding the motor cycle, but they failed to prove the same. Mentioning of selffall would not prove that the deceased was riding the motor cycle. PW.2, independent eye-witness deposes that deceased was pillion rider and respondent No.1 was riding the motorcycle. No material is placed on record nor there is oral evidence to say that the deceased was riding the motor cycle. 13. The learned counsel for the insurer relied on the decision of the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. B.C. Kumar and Yoganarasimha, (2009) ILR(Kar) 2921 to say that the medical records have to be considered which would indicate the recording of initial statement by the injured. The said decision would have no application to the facts of the present case. Self-fall injury to the deceased by himself riding the motorcycle is to be proved. In the instant case, the Insurance Company failed to prove that the deceased was riding the motor cycle, even though Ex.P8 and P10 records that it is self-fall injuries. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention advanced by the Insurance Company with regard to self-fall injuries. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company would fail and same is rejected. 14. The claimants contended that the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- per month is on the lower side and prayed for enhancing the same. In the claim petition, it is stated that the deceased was having photo studio and thereby earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. But there is no material on record to establish his profession as photographer and also to establish his income. In the absence of material to establish the income or profession, the Court will have to assess the income notionally. The notional income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- per month is on the lower side. This Court and Lok Adalaths while settling the accident claims of the year 2011, would normally assess the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. The notional income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- per month is on the lower side. This Court and Lok Adalaths while settling the accident claims of the year 2011, would normally assess the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. In the instant case, in the absence of any material to establish the income of the deceased, we deem it appropriate to assess the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. The claimant was aged 30 years as stated in the claim petition and Post Mortem report also indicates the age of the deceased as 30 years. But the Tribunal without there being any basis had taken the age of the deceased as 31 years which is wholly erroneous. The age of the deceased is to be taken as 30 years and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal needs to be modified by adopting multiplier of 17. Further, the Tribunal has failed to award any compensation on the head of future prospects. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 , has held that the claimants would be entitled for addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects, wherever the deceased was aged below 40 years. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. The claimant No.2 and 3 are children and claimant No.4 is the mother of the deceased, hence, they would be entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on the head of parental and filial consortium as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). Thus, the claimants would be entitled for the following modified compensation: Loss of dependency including future prospects: Rs.6,000 x 40%= Rs.2,400 Rs.6000 + 2400 = Rs.8,400/- Rs.8,400 1/4 = Rs.6,300 Rs.6,300 x 12 x 17 = Rs.12,85,200 Conventional head = Rs.77,000/- Parental and filial consortium = Rs.1,20,000/- Total = Rs.14,82,200/- 15. Thus, in all, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.14,82,200/- as against Rs.7,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 16. In the result, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is rejected. Thus, in all, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.14,82,200/- as against Rs.7,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 16. In the result, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is rejected. b) Cross objection filed by the claimants is allowed in part. c) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by awarding total compensation of Rs.14,82,200/- as against Rs.7,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. d) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount before the Tribunal with accrued interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. e) Out of the enhanced compensation amount, Rs.3,00,000/- is directed to be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank in the name of 1st claimant-wife of the deceased for a period of five years with liberty to her to withdraw the accrued interest periodically. f) Rs.1,00,000/- is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank in the name of the claimant No.4-mother of the deceased for a period of three years with liberty to her to withdraw the periodical interest accrued thereon. g) Remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of the claimants 2 and 3-children of the deceased in equal proportion till they attain the age of majority with liberty to the 1st claimant to withdraw the periodical interest accrued thereon. h) The amount in deposit before this Court be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith for disbursement.