JUDGMENT V Srishananda, J. - Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of parties, the matter is finally heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. Mfa No.103239/2016 is preferred by the claimants in MVC No.569/2014, MFA No.103240/2016 is preferred by the claimants in MVC No.570/2014. MFA No.103696/2015 is preferred by the Insurance company in MVC No.569/2014 and MFA No.103697/2015 is preferred by the Insurance company in MVC NO.570/2014 being not satisfied with common judgment and award dated 24.08.2015 passed by MACT-XII, Ballari. 3. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as under : These claim petitions were filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act by the dependants of one Obalapathi and deceased Sharavankumar in respect of accidental death said to have taken place on 26.11.2012 at about 11.00.p.m. when said Obalapathi and Sharavankumar were returning to Ballari in an Indica car bearing No.AP- 02-P-0924 after participating in Moharam Festival in Koneti Palyam, when they reached near the land of one Pompa Reddy in Joladarashi village, a lorry bearing No.AP-03/6199 came in rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction and dashed against the car. In view of the impact of the accident, the car caught fired and the inmates of the car namely Obalapathi and Sharavankumar got burnt at the spot. Hence, the claim petitions were filed seeking grant of suitable compensation. 4. In pursuance of the notice, respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are the owner and Insurance company of the offending lorry in question appeared and filed their separate written statement denying the claim petition averments. They also denied rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and prayed for dismissal of the petitions. 5. Based on the same, the tribunal raised the following issues. 1. Whether petitioners in both the cases prove the death of one Obalapathi S/o. Late Chinna Akkulappa and one Shravankumar S/o. U. Hanumantharayadu in RTA that was occurred on 26.11.2013 at about 11 p.m. near the land of one Pompareddy at Joladarashi village, due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing Regn.No.AP.03/U.6199 by first respondent? 2. Whether third respondent proves that the alleged accident was the result of contributory and composite negligence of two vehicles bearing Regn.No.AP- 03/U.6199 Lorry driven by first respondent and AP.02/ P.0924 Indica Car by its driver i.e., deceased Obalapathi? 3. 2. Whether third respondent proves that the alleged accident was the result of contributory and composite negligence of two vehicles bearing Regn.No.AP- 03/U.6199 Lorry driven by first respondent and AP.02/ P.0924 Indica Car by its driver i.e., deceased Obalapathi? 3. Whether petitioners are entitle for compensation as prayed for? 4. What order or an award ? 6. In order to prove the above issues, the claimants namely Smt.Shireesha and Mounika got examined as PW1 and 2 and one Munirajulu @ Murthi was examined as PW3 and as many as 31 documents were marked and exhibited as Exs.P1 to P31. On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence was adduced. But insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1. 7. On cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the tribunal answered issue No.1 in the affirmative and Issue Nos.2 in the negative and allowed the claim petitions by granting a sum of Rs.9,34,136/- in MVC No.569/2014 and a sum of Rs.10,44,500/- in MVC No.570/2014 with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit in both the cases. The compensation awarded under different heads as under: Sl. No. Particulars MVC No.569/2014 MVC No.570/2014 1 Towards loss of dependency 8,84,136/- 9,94,500/- 2 Loss of estate 10,000/- 10,000/- 3 Towards Loss of love and affection 10,000/- 10,000/- 4 Towards funeral 10,000/- 10,000/- 5 Towards loss of consortium to the 20,000/- 20,000/- TOTAL 9,34,136/- 10,44,500/- 8. It is that judgment which is under challenge in these appeals by the claimants as well as the Insurance company respectively. 9. The learned counsel for the Insurance company contended that the accident has not at all occurred on account of negligence of the driver of the lorry, but, it is purely on account of the negligent driving of the driver of the Indica car. 10. The learned counsel for the Insurance company vehemently contended that the tribunal erred in law in allowing the above compensation, which is on the higher side and sought for allowing the appeals. 11. Whereas, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that the tribunal did not take into consideration principles of law enunciated in Pranay Sethi in not making proper addition to the adjudged compensation. The counsel further contended that the adjudged compensation is on the lower side and sought for enhancement of the compensation. 12. 11. Whereas, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that the tribunal did not take into consideration principles of law enunciated in Pranay Sethi in not making proper addition to the adjudged compensation. The counsel further contended that the adjudged compensation is on the lower side and sought for enhancement of the compensation. 12. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the following points would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the Insurance company has made out a case for setting aside the judgment and award dated 24.08.2015 passed in MVC No.569/2014 and 570/2014. 2. Whether the appellants-claimants in MVC No.569/2014 and 570/2014 have made out a case for enhancement of the compensation? 13. Answer to above point No.1 in the negative and point No.2 in the affirmative for the following: REASONS 14. The main thrust of the argument on behalf of the Insurance company is that the driver of the Indica car had no valid and effective driving licence and he was under the influence of the alcohol and therefore, it is rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, which resulted in accident. 15. The second contention on which the Insurance company is questioning the impugned award is on future prospects of the deceased. It is argued that in the absence of any permanent employment possessed by the deceased, addition of 30% towards future prospects in the impugned judgment needs to be interfered. The last submission is that the interest ordered by the tribunal @ 7% p.a. is on the higher side. 16. To counter the said argument, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that none of the contentions raised on behalf of the Insurance company are having merit and supported the finding recorded by the tribunal. However, it is also contended that the tribunal did not properly assess the monthly income as well as towards future prospects and sought for the enhancement of the compensation. 17. On record, it is found that the driver of the lorry has been charge sheeted. Neither the owner of the lorry, nor the Insurance company challenged the filing of the charge sheet. 18. 17. On record, it is found that the driver of the lorry has been charge sheeted. Neither the owner of the lorry, nor the Insurance company challenged the filing of the charge sheet. 18. On record, there is no oral evidence placed on behalf of the respondent Insurance company to hold that the driver of the Indica car did not possess the valid driving licence nor he was under the influence of the alcohol at the time of accident. 19. The tribunal while dealing on issue No.1, has clearly held that it is the negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP.03/6199, the accident has occurred. The tribunal has taken into consideration the oral evidence of PW1 to 3 as well as documentary evidence placed on record. 20. Among the oral evidence placed, PW3 is the eye witness to the accident. In his cross examination by the Insurance company, they have questioned the very identity of PW3. He denies the suggestion that he was not at all cleaner of the lorry in question and he has deposed falsely. PW3 who is a stranger to claimants has stated in clear and categorical terms about the accident. Police investigation papers reveal that it is the driver of offending lorry who is responsible for accident. 21. Even after reappreciation of the Police Investigation papers, which were exhibited and marked and after reappreciation of the oral evidence of PW1 to 3, we do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the tribunal that the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP.03/6199 is responsible for the accident in question. Therefore, we answer point No.1 in the negative. 22. Insofar as second issue is concerned, the tribunal in MVC No.569/2014 (MFA No/103239/2016) has considered the fact that no material are placed on record to show that the deceased Obalapathi was earning Rs.45,000/- to 50,000/- per month. However, it has been noticed from the claim petition averments that he was working as a photographer and he owned a Photo Studio and he was also working as driver. There was no cogent evidence placed on record, to prove the income. As such, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month notionally and awarded the compensation to a sum of Rs.8,84,136/- towards loss of dependency. 23. There was no cogent evidence placed on record, to prove the income. As such, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month notionally and awarded the compensation to a sum of Rs.8,84,136/- towards loss of dependency. 23. This court and Lok Adalaths have consistently assessed the monthly income of a person at Rs.6,500/- for the accidental claims of the year 2012 in the absence of formal income proof. As such, we deem it proper to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.6,500/- per month notionally. 24. The tribunal has added 30% addition to the monthly income by following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and others V/s. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) ACJ 1403 . 25. However, the law on the point, as on today is well settled in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V/s. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 , it has been held that a driver who is victim of an accident, who aged below 40 years and possessing a permanent employment, would be entitled for addition of 40% on the head of future prospects. It is also mentioned in the very same decision that in case of persons who are not government employee or salaried person must be taken as 25% uniformly. 26. Subsequent to Pranay Sethi's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hem Raj V/s. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., and others, (2018) ACJ 5 , held in clear and categorical terms while assessing the future prospects. There should be indiscrimination between a person under government employment or permanent employment or whose income is assessed on guesswork. 27. On conjoint consideration of the legal principles enunciated in the cases of Pranay Seti and Hem Raj, the relevant portion is culled out herein for ready reference. As per Pranay Sethi's case, it is held as under : "(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) , S.166, S.168 - Compensation - Future prospects - Determination - (I) Selfemployed or fix salaried deceased:- Deceased below 40 years, addition of 40%; between 40 to 50 years, addition of 25% and between 50-60 years, addition of 10% of established income to be made. (II) Deceased with permanent job:- Deceased below 40 years, addition of 50%; between 40 to 50 years addition of 30% and between 50 to 60 years, addition of 15% of actual salary to income of deceased towards future prospects to be made. (2013) 9 SCC 54 , Overr uled." In Hem Raj case, at para No.13 it is held as under: We are of the view that there cannot be distinction where there is positive evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guesswork in the facts and circumstances of a case. Both the situations stand at the same footing. Accordingly, in the present case, addition of 40 percent to the income assessed by the Tribunal is required to be made. The Tribunal made addition of 50 per cent while the High Court has deleted the same. 28. On consideration of legal principles enunciated in Pranay Sethi and Hem Raj, the claimants in the present case are entitled for addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. 29. The deceased left behind his wife, minor child and mother. Therefore, 1/3rd of the income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. 30. Accordingly, the claimants in MVC No.569/2014 (MFA No.103239/2016) would be entitled for the compensation towards loss of dependency including future prospects as under : Rs.6,500+40%=2600+6500=9100/- Rs.9,100X1/3=3033 6,067X12X17=12,37,668/- 31. The claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.70,000/- on conventional heads. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.13,07,668/- 32. Likewise, the deceased in MVC No.570/2014 was aged 27 years as per P.M. report. The claimants further contended that the deceased was owning a welding shop and earning Rs.45,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month. The tribunal did not agree the said contention and in his case also adjudged the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. 33. The tribunal has added 30% addition to the said income by following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and others (Supra) and properly adopted multiplier of 17, has awarded the compensation to a sum of Rs.9,94,500/- towards loss of dependency. 34. This court and Lok Adalaths have consistently assessed the monthly income of a person at Rs.6,500/- for the accidental claims of the year 2012 in the absence of formal income proof. 35. 34. This court and Lok Adalaths have consistently assessed the monthly income of a person at Rs.6,500/- for the accidental claims of the year 2012 in the absence of formal income proof. 35. As discussed supra, in view of no cogent evidence being placed by the claimants in MVC No.570/2014, the monthly income is to be assessed at Rs.6,500/- notionally. 36. Following the legal principles enunciated in Pranay Sethi and Hem Raj as discussed, the deceased being aged 27 years, is entitled for addition of 40% to the assessed income thereof. 37. Having regard to the fact that the deceased left being his wife, mother, father and brother, as per decision in the case of Sarala Verma (Smt) and others v/s Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , there should be deduction of 1/4th amount towards personal and living expenses. Hence, the claimants in MVC No.570/2014 (MFA No.103240/2016) are entitled for the compensation towards loss of dependency including future prospects as under: Rs.6,500+40%=2600+6500=9100/- Rs.9,100X1/4=2275 (9100-2275=6825) 6825X12X17=13,92,300/- 38. The claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.70,000/- on conventional heads. Therefore, the claimants in MFA No.103240/2016(MVC No.570/2014) are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.14,62,300/- 39. In view of the foregoing discussions, the points are answered in the negative and affirmative respectively and the following order is passed. ORDER Appeals in MFA Nos.103239/2016 and 103240/2016 are allowed in part. Appeals in MFA Nos.103696/2015 and 103697/2015 are dismissed. Hence, the appellants-claimants in MFA No.103239/2016 are entitled for the modified compensation of Rs.13,07,668/- with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The claimants in MFA No.103240/2016 are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.14,62,300/- with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The appeal in MFA Nos.103239/2016 and No.103240/2016 filed by the claimants vide order dated 09.03.2018 and 22.06.2020 respectively while condoning the delay, it has been observed that the appellants-claimants in both the cases shall not entitle for interest for the delayed period of 294 days, which is condoned. The respondent-Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and an additional compensation awarded by this Court with up to date interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The deposit and apportionment of the enhanced compensation shall hold good as per the order of the tribunal. The respondent-Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and an additional compensation awarded by this Court with up to date interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The deposit and apportionment of the enhanced compensation shall hold good as per the order of the tribunal. The registry is directed to draw the modified awards accordingly.