JUDGMENT V Srishananda, J. - The insurance company is in appeal questioning the validity of the judgment and award dated 01.02.2019, in MVC NO.470/2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal III, Bagalkot. 2. Necessary facts in brief for disposal of this appeal are as under: In a claim petition filed by the dependants of one Irayya Hiremath it is contended that on 07.02.2014 at about 9.30 p.m. when Irayya Hiremath was returning from Kotekal to his house near Guledgudda on a motorcycle bearing No.KA-29/V-9460 along with pillion rider Ramesh Sitimani, near post office cross, another motorcycle bearing No.KA-02/HA-7464 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly turned to the right side and dashed against the motorcycle of Irayya Hiremath resulting in accident, wherein Irayya Hiremath sustained grievous injuries on his head and other parts of the body. It is further contended that immediately he was shifted to Banashankari Hospital, Guledgudda for First- Aid and then to Dr.Kerudi Hospital, Bagalkot; but on 15.12.2014, Irayya Hiremath succumbed to the injuries. It is contended that the claimants have spent more than Rs.1,50,000/- towards his medical expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards transportation of his dead body, funeral expenses etc. and therefore, laid a claim. It is further contended that Irayya was indulged in mason work and was earning Rs.12,500/- per month and since the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased have lost their bread-earner, they sought for awarding suitable compensation. On issuance of notice, respondents appeared before the Tribunal and filed their statement of objections denying the claim petition averments. The first respondent however contended that in the event the Tribunal adjudging any compensation, since the vehicle is insured with the second respondent, the liability may be fastened on the insurance company. The second respondent in addition to denying the claim petition averments contended that the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA- 02/HA-7464 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and sought for dismissal of claim petition. In order to substantiate the claim petition averments, the first claimant got examined himself as P.W.1 and in all nine documents were marked as documentary evidence vide Exs.P.1 to P.9. On behalf of the respondent/insurance company, one Pranesh Kulkarni got examined as R.W.1 and relied on the documentary evidence, which were marked at Ex.R.1 to R.6. In order to substantiate the claim petition averments, the first claimant got examined himself as P.W.1 and in all nine documents were marked as documentary evidence vide Exs.P.1 to P.9. On behalf of the respondent/insurance company, one Pranesh Kulkarni got examined as R.W.1 and relied on the documentary evidence, which were marked at Ex.R.1 to R.6. Among the documentary evidence, copy of SSLC marks card and certificate issued by the PET's R & K English Medium School Guledgudda of deceased marked at Ex.R.3 and 4 are of importantace according to the learned counsel for the insurance company. After cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.15,58,000/- as compensation under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads Compensation (in Rs) 1 Medical Expenses 1,20,000/- 2 Loss of dependency 13,68,000/- 3 Loss of estate 15,000/- 4 Loss of consortium 40,000/- 5 For funeral expenses 15,000/- Total 15,58,000/- 3. It is that judgment, which is under challenge in this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the Tribunal has erred in law in computing the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-. It is his case that in the absence of documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income notionally. 5. It is his further case that the Tribunal added 50% of the income towards future prospects, which is erroneous in view of legal principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 . He also pointed out that though in Para 15 of the impugned judgment the Tribunal referred Pranay Sethi's case , yet it added 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects, which is incorrect. He has specifically referred to Ex.R.3/copy of S.S.L.C. marks card wherein the age of the deceased is mentioned as 17 years. It is also his case that the Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier 19' instead of 18' and calculated the award. He further contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in riding the motorcycle as deceased was minor and thus sought for modification of the award. 6. It is also his case that the Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier 19' instead of 18' and calculated the award. He further contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in riding the motorcycle as deceased was minor and thus sought for modification of the award. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants supported the impugned judgment and stated that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the P.M. report wherein the age of the deceased is mentioned as 19 years as on the date of the accident and that was conclusive proof and thus, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 7. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the following points would arise for our consideration: "Whether the insurance company has made out a case for modification of the award?" 8. We answer the above point in the affirmative for the following: REASONS 9. In this case, the accident that occurred on 07.12.2014 at about 9.30 p.m. near Guledgudda post office cross involving of two motorcycles and in the said accident one Irayya Hiremath, who was the rider of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries on 15.12.2014 in the hospital, is not in dispute. 10. On record, there is a material to show that the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-02/HA-7464 was charge-sheeted. Ex.P.8-certified copy of the charge-sheet clearly establishes the fact that it is the rider of the motorcycle bearing No. KA-02/HA-7464, who was responsible for the accident. 11. The Tribunal while adjudging the income of the deceased has taken into account that the deceased was aged 19 years and was indulged in mason work and to get Rs.200/- per day, and thus arrived at Rs.6,000/- per month as against claimed amount of Rs.12,500/-. Obviously, the said assessment is a notional assessment. This court and the Lok-Adalaths, in the absence of any positive evidence on record, have notionally assessed the income at Rs.7,500/- per month for accidental claims of the year 2014. Therefore, we deem it proper to assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month. 12. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has added 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects by citing the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case. 13. Therefore, we deem it proper to assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month. 12. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has added 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects by citing the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company contends that addition of 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects is incorrect in view of the fact that the deceased was aged 17 years, and when there was no avocation at all for him, there is no question of granting future prospects and therefore, the addition of 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects is against the legal principles enunciated in Pranay Sethi's case. 14. We find some force in the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company. Even as per the legal principles enunciated in Pranay Sethi's case, for a person who is below the age group of 40 years, only 40% of the assessed income should be added towards future prospects and not 50%. 15. The Tribunal in para No.15 of the impugned judgment though cited the case of Pranay Sethi , has added 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects, which in our opinion is incorrect and baseless. Therefore, we reduce it to 40%. 16. The deceased being a bachelor at the time of his death, deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased is also an error committed by the Tribunal. 17. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has applied multiplier 19'. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) AIR SC 3104 , for the persons, who are of the age group 15 to 20 years and 20 to 25 years, appropriate multiplier would be "18". Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be modified. 18. If the income of deceased is taken at Rs.7,500/- per month and after addition of 40% of the same towards future prospects, it would come to Rs.10,500/- and since the deceased died bachelor, after deducting 50% of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased, it would come to Rs.5,250/-. After applying multiplier 18' the claimants would be entitled to Rs.11,34,000/- (Rs.5250 x 12 x 18 = Rs.11,34,000/- towards loss of dependency including future prospects. 19. After applying multiplier 18' the claimants would be entitled to Rs.11,34,000/- (Rs.5250 x 12 x 18 = Rs.11,34,000/- towards loss of dependency including future prospects. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company contends that having regard to the age of the deceased being 17 years, he could not have possessed any driving licence to ride motorcycle. Driving a vehicle, without there being valid driving licence is itself illegal and therefore, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation or in the alternative we find from the records that as per Ex.R.3, the age of the deceased as 17 years, it is specific case of the claimants themselves that the deceased was the rider of the motorcycle and one Ramesh was the pillion rider, as such, we deem it proper to attribute 30% of contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-29/V-9460 in the accident though the rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA-02/HA-7464 has been charge-sheeted. 20. Accordingly, after deducting 30% towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.7,93,800/- (Rs.11,34,000 less 30% i.e. Rs.3,40,000 = Rs.7,93,800/-) towards loss of dependency including future prospects. 21. Further, the claimants being the parents of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium. 22. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/- requires to be maintained. 23. On the loss of estate and funeral expenses the claimants would be entitled to Rs.30,000/-. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to the total compensation as under: 1. Towards loss of dependency including future prospects (Rs.11,34,000 less 30% i.e. Rs.3,40,000 = Rs.7,93,800/-) Rs.7,93,800/- 2. Towards medical expenses Rs.1,20,000/- 3. Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.30,000/- 4. Towards filial consortium (Rs.40,000 x 2 = Rs.80,000/-) Rs.80,000/- Total Rs.10,23,800/- 24. In view of the foregoing discussion, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The claimants are entitled to modified compensation of Rs.10,23,800/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization as against Rs.15,58,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The apportionment, deposit and disbursement shall be as ordered by the Tribunal in the same proportion. Draw the modified award accordingly.