JUDGMENT B Veerappa, J. - Mfa No.6657/2016 is filed by the Insurance Company for reduction of compensation and MFA No.4991/2017 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, against the judgment and award dated 15.06.2016 made in MVC No.1745/2014 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, MACT-II, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, awarding total compensation of Rs. 23,28,200/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. I. FACTS OF THE CASE 2. It is the case of the claimants that the claimants are the wife and children of deceased Sathyaraj @ Sathyanarayan. On 01.02.2014, one Ramesh S. Rai was riding the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-19/ED-0717 in which the deceased was traveling as a pillion rider and were moving from Kodekkal bridge side towards Perla side. At about 9.00 pm, when the motor cycle reached Perla junction, the rider took turn in order to go towards Bajal Veeranagar side, but lost control and dashed to the stone wall by the side of the road and fell into 10 feet deep ditch by the side of the road. Due to the said impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was shifted KMC Hospital, Mangaluru, where he succumbed to the injuries. After conducting the post mortem, the body was handed over to the claimants who performed the obsequies ceremony by spending more than Rs. One lakh. 3. It is further case of the claimants that the jurisdictional police registered a criminal case against the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-19/ED-0717. It is stated by the claimants that the deceased was aged 27 years at the time of his death and was working as a Manager in Prashanth Wines, Maidan Cross road, and was getting salary of Rs. 16,000/- per month. All the claimants were depending on the income of the deceased for their livelihood and due to the untimely death, the claimants lost love, affection and support to the family. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by its owner who is the 1st respondent before the Tribunal. It is contended that the 1st respondent being the owner and the 2nd respondent being the insurer of the motor cycle, both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, the claimants sought compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs). II. It is contended that the 1st respondent being the owner and the 2nd respondent being the insurer of the motor cycle, both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, the claimants sought compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs). II. OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE INSURER 4. The 1st respondent, inspite of service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed written statement, denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant, arbitrary, baseless, speculative and the claim petition has been filed by suppressing the real facts. It is further denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by its rider and contended that it was due to negligence on the part of the deceased. It is further contended that the motor cycle was insured with the 2nd respondent subject to terms and conditions as to use of the vehicle and as there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. The 2nd respondent also denied the age, avocation, income and also the relationship of the deceased with claimants and sought to dismiss the claim petition. III. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE TRIBUNAL 5. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (i) Whether the petitioners are able to prove that on 01.02.2014 at about 9.00 pm while the deceased Sathyaraj @ Sathya naraniana, S/o Chandra @ Chandrayyayya Achar was proceeding as a pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing Reg.No. KA-19/ED- 0717, from Kodekkal bridge side towards Perla side with one Mr. Ramesh S. Rai, when they reached near Perla junction, the rider of the above said motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner took right turn of the vehicle in order to go towards Bajal Veeranagar side and dashed to the stone wall by the side of the road, due to the impact deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the death at KMC Hospital, Mangalore? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what quantum and from whom? (iii) What order or award? IV.WITNESSES EXAMINED 6. In order to prove their case, claimant No.1 was examined as P.W.1 and two other witnesses were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3, and marked documents Exs.P.1 to P.14. (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what quantum and from whom? (iii) What order or award? IV.WITNESSES EXAMINED 6. In order to prove their case, claimant No.1 was examined as P.W.1 and two other witnesses were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3, and marked documents Exs.P.1 to P.14. The 2nd respondent produced the copy of the policy and marked it as Ex.R.1. V. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL 7. The learned I Additional district Judge and MACT-II, Mangaluru, considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded a finding that the claimants have proved that the husband of the 1st claimant and father of the 2nd claimant died in the road traffic accident while traveling as a pillion rider in the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-19/ED-0717 and the claimants are entitled to compensation. Accordingly, by the judgment and award dated 15.06.2016 awarded total compensation of Rs. 23,28,200/- with 6% interest from the date of petition till its realization. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has filed MFA No.6657/2016 for reduction of compensation and the claimants have filed MFA No.4991/2017 for enhancement of compensation. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. VI. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR INSURANCE COMPANY 9. Sri L.Sreekanta Rao, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 12,000/- per month based on imaginary evidence is erroneous and contrary to the material on record and therefore, liable to be set-aside. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in adding 50% of the assessment towards future prospects ignoring the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and on that ground alone, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be set-aside. He further contended that the Tribunal proceeded to take the income of the deceased at Rs. 12,000/- per month only on the basis of the statement made by the employer of the deceased. It is only a oral statement and the said witness has not produced any documentary evidence before the Tribunal to substantiate that the deceased was being paid Rs. 16,000/- per month as claimed. In the absence of any proof, the same cannot be considered. It is only a oral statement and the said witness has not produced any documentary evidence before the Tribunal to substantiate that the deceased was being paid Rs. 16,000/- per month as claimed. In the absence of any proof, the same cannot be considered. He further contended that the Tribunal proceeded to award Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of consortium, 50,000/- towards loss to estate and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral and obsequies expenses, i.e., in all, Rs. 1,25,000/- under conventional heads, whereas, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has fixed Rs. 70,000/- as compensation under the conventional heads. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal requires modification and hence, sought to allow the appeal filed by the insurance company and dismiss the appeal filed by the claimants. VII. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR CLAIMANTS 10. Per contra, Sri G.Ravishankar Shastry, learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 12,000/- ignoring the salary certificate Ex.P.9 issued by P.W.3-M.Prasad who is the Proprietor of Prashanth Wines. He further contended that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 who have stated on oath that the deceased was aged 27 years, was working as Manager and earning Rs. 16,000/- per month. The same has been ignored and the Tribunal proceeded to take income of the deceased as Rs. 12,000/- per month and the same is without any basis. He further contended that though the Tribunal added 50% of the income of the deceased to calculate the future prospects, erred in deducting 10% towards income tax, which is impermissible. The Tribunal has only awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of love and affection in favour of 1st claimant which is on lower side and has not awarded any amount towards loss of love and affection to the claimant No.2, minor daughter of the deceased. Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal filed by the claimants and dismiss the appeal filed by the insurance company. VIII. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 11. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration in the present Appeals are: (i) Whether the Insurance Company which is appellant in MFA No.6657/2016 has made out any prima-facie case for reduction of compensation awarded by the Tribunal? VIII. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 11. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration in the present Appeals are: (i) Whether the Insurance Company which is appellant in MFA No.6657/2016 has made out any prima-facie case for reduction of compensation awarded by the Tribunal? (ii) Whether the claimants who are the appellants in MFA No.4991/2017 have made out any prima-facie case for further enhancement of compensation, in the facts and circumstances of the case? 12. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record including the original records, carefully. IX. CONSIDERATION 13. It is not in dispute that the deceased Sathyaraj @ Sathyanarayan died in a road traffic accident on 01.02.2014 while traveling as a pillion rider, due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-19/ED-0717, by the rider, as is evidenced by the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 and the material evidence Exs.P.1 to P.8. It is the specific case of P.Ws.1 to 3 that the deceased was working as Manager in Prashanth Wines and was earning Rs. 16,000/- per month as can be seen from the salary certificate-Ex.P.9 issued by the 3rd respondent who is the Proprietor of the wine shop where the deceased was working as Manager. P.W.2 happens to be the complainant who is an eye witness to the incident and his evidence is produced as per Ex.P.2. The jurisdictional police inspected the spot and mahazar was drawn as per Exs.P.5 and 8 respectively. Admittedly, except producing Ex.P.1-policy in respect of the motor cycle, which was in force as on the date of the accident, the insurance company has not adduced any contra evidence. The Tribunal, while awarding compensation, though recorded adverse finding against the rider of the motor cycle that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle, neither the rider of the motor cycle who is the 1st respondent before the Tribunal who is served and unrepresented, nor the insurance company have challenged the said finding. Taking into consideration the fact that the deceased was working as Manager in Prashanth Wines and the Proprietor of the said wine shop issued salary certificate as per Ex.P.9, the Tribunal erred in taking salary of the deceased as Rs. 12,000/-. Taking into consideration the fact that the deceased was working as Manager in Prashanth Wines and the Proprietor of the said wine shop issued salary certificate as per Ex.P.9, the Tribunal erred in taking salary of the deceased as Rs. 12,000/-. The Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased as Rs. 14,000/-, taking into consideration the fact that neither the claimants nor the employer of the deceased have produced any material documents to prove that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 16,000/- and the employer used to deduct the income tax. Since the accident is of the year 2014, the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 12,000/- is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. 14. Further, 40% of the salary has to be added to calculate the loss of future prospects and not 50%, in view of the Full Bench dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethij and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , paragraphs 59.4 reads as under: "59.4 In case the deceased was selfemployed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component." X. ENTITLEMENT 15. Thus, 40% of Rs. 14,000/- would be Rs. 5,600/-. Thus, the future prospects would be Rs. 14,000/- + *Rs. 5,600/- = Rs. 19,600/-. The deceased left behind *Corrected vide chamber order dated 16.7.2020 two legal representatives, viz., wife and a daughter. Therefore, 1/3rd has to be deducted and the multiplier 17 has to be taken for the age group 27 years, in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Accordingly, the loss of dependency would be Rs. 19,600/- x 12 x 1/3 x 17= Rs. 26,65,600/-. 16. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral and obsequies, in all Rs. Accordingly, the loss of dependency would be Rs. 19,600/- x 12 x 1/3 x 17= Rs. 26,65,600/-. 16. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral and obsequies, in all Rs. 1,25,000/-, which is contrary to the dictum of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), wherein, at paragraph 59.8, it is held as under: "59.8 Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years." 17. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 70,000/- plus 10% for three years i.e., Rs. 7,000/-, totally Rs. 77,000/- under conventional heads as against Rs. 1,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 18. The Tribunal has deducted 10% towards income tax which is erroneous and contrary to the income tax slab that was prevailing during the Financial Year 2014-15, since, no income tax was leviable for income upto Rs. 2,50,000/-. Admittedly, annual income of the deceased during 2014 was only Rs. 1,68,000/-. Adding Rs. 67,200/- (i.e., 40% of the future prospects),the total annual income comes to Rs. 2,35,200/- which is below the income tax slab fixed by the legislation for the Financial Year 2014- 15. Hence, no amount is liable to be deducted towards income tax. 19. For the reasons stated above, the 1st point raised for consideration in these appeals has to be answered in the negative holding that, though the Insurance Company has made out a case for reduction of compensation under conventional heads, has not made out any case for reduction of compensation. Accordingly, the 2nd point raised for consideration is answered in affirmative holding that the claimants have made out a case for enhancement of compensation. 20. After re-assessing both oral and documentary evidence on record, the claimants are entitled to just compensation as under: Loss of dependency Rs. 26,65,600/- Loss of consortium Loss to estate Funeral and obsequies Rs. 77,000/- Total Rs. 27,42,600 XI. RESULT 21. For the reasons stated above, MFA No.6657/2016 filed by the Insurance Company for reduction of compensation is dismissed as devoid of merits. MFA No.4991/2017 filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation is allowed in part. 26,65,600/- Loss of consortium Loss to estate Funeral and obsequies Rs. 77,000/- Total Rs. 27,42,600 XI. RESULT 21. For the reasons stated above, MFA No.6657/2016 filed by the Insurance Company for reduction of compensation is dismissed as devoid of merits. MFA No.4991/2017 filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award made in MVC No.1745/2014 is modified. The claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 27,42,600/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization, as against Rs. 23,28,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. 22. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company before this Court in pursuance of the Order dated 25.11.2016 and the statutory deposit made at the time of filing the Appeal shall be transferred to the Tribunal, forthwith. 23. The insurance company shall deposit the remaining compensation amount on the basis of the enhancement made by this Court, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The apportionment of the enhanced compensation shall be made in terms of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Ordered accordingly. No order as to costs.