JUDGMENT M Nagaprasanna, J. - This appeal, though listed for admission, is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.04.2016 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for short) in MVC No.1549/2014. 3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 30.05.2014 at about 11.45 p.m., the deceased Girish H.C. was driving his lorry bearing registration No.KA-46-1932 from Mangalore to Bangalore. When he came near Shiradi, Puttur Taluk on N.H.75, at that time, a Tata Trailer lorry bearing registration No.KA-48-5056 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the lorry of the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. 4. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of accident and was himself the owner and driver of the lorry as it belonged to his father-in-law and was earning Rs.40,000/- p.m. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.62,60,000/- along with interest. 5. On service of notice, the 1st respondentinsurance company filed its statement of objections denying the age, income and occupation of the deceased. It was also denied that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tata Trailer lorry. It was further contended that the driver of the said lorry did not have a valid and effective driving licence and that the compensation clamed by the claimants was highly exorbitant and excessive. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 also filed their statement of objections and contended that the petition averments were false and the fact that the deceased was driving his lorry after consumption of alcohol in a rash and negligent manner. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined three witnesses on their behalf. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined three witnesses on their behalf. The wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1, father of the deceased was examined as P.W.2 and another witness as P.W.3 and got exhibited 23 documents, namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P.23. On the other hand, the respondents neither produced any witness nor marked any documents. 7. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tata Trailer Lorry by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.13,75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/- per month for which the documents were produced and he was also earning Rs.5,00,000/- from agriculture annually, which was also ignored. The compensation awarded on all the other conventional heads is on the lower side. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the judgment passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the claimants have not produced any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. Therefore, the notional income has to be fixed as per the guidelines issued by the High Court Legal Services Committee. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2014, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.8,500/- p.m. To the aforesaid amount, 40% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ' NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS, (2017) AIR SC 5157 . Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.11,900/-. Out of which, we deem it appropriate to deduct 1/4th towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.8,950/-. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS, (2017) AIR SC 5157 . Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.11,900/-. Out of which, we deem it appropriate to deduct 1/4th towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.8,950/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 40 years at the time of accident, multiplier of 15 has to be adopted. The claimants are entitled to Rs.16,11,000/-(Rs8,950 X 12 X 15) on account of loss of dependency. 11. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in ' MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NANU RAM, (2018) ACJ 2782 , the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each as loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Thus, the total amount of compensation under this head is assessed at Rs.1,60,000/-. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.18,01,000/- Needless to state that the aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment is made. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.