JUDGMENT V. Srishananda, J. - Both these appeals are arising out of one and the same judgment and award dated 19th June 2017, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XIV, Mudhol (for short 'the Tribunal') in MVC No.420/2015. 2. Mfa No.103551 of 2017 is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal and MFA No100617 of 2018 is filed by the appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranking before the tribunal. 4. The brief facts of the case, which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are as under: A claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs.56,50,000/- alleging that on 13.10.2014 at about 7:15 p.m. one Manjunath @ Manju S/o.Rudrappa Tigadi was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.KA-48/R- 8899 from Tigadi Village to Mudhol via Yaragatti- Lokapur. When he came near Mallapur village cross on Yaragatti-Lokapur PWD Road, a car bearing No.KA-48/M-3703 was coming from the hind side of the motorcycle, the driver of the car over took the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly stopped his car to avoid dashing to the another vehicle, which is coming from opposite direction. Due to which, the motorcycle dashed to the backside of the car and Manjunath sustained grievous injuries. On the way to hospital, he died. It is further contended that he was working as Supplier in Sagar Bar and Restaurant and was getting daily wages of Rs.500/- per day and in addition to that he was getting Rs.100/- by way of tips. Since, the dependents have lost the bread winner and they have sought for suitable compensation. 5. In pursuance to the notice issued by the tribunal, first respondent appeared and filed the written statement denying the claim petition averments. He specifically contended that negligent driving of the motorcycle by Manjunath itself is the cause for the said accident, hence sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. The Insurance Company also filed the written statement denying the claim petition averments and specifically contended that there is an active collusion between first respondent and the claimant in getting the charge sheet filed against the driver of the car and sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. 6. The Insurance Company also filed the written statement denying the claim petition averments and specifically contended that there is an active collusion between first respondent and the claimant in getting the charge sheet filed against the driver of the car and sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the tribunal raised the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioners prove that on 13.10.2014 at about 7:10 p.m. on Yaragatti to Lokapur PWD road, near Mallapur village cross, when deceased Manjunath was coming on motorcycle bearing No.KA-48/R-8899 from Tigadi to Mudhol, the driver of car No.KA-48/M- 3703 over take the motorcycle of the Manjunath and suddenly without any sign or signal stopped the car without leaving any space due to which the motorcycle of the Manjuanth was dashed to backside of the car and he sustained grievous injuries all over the body and died as a result of the accident, as stated in the petition? 2. Whether the petitioners prove the age and income of the deceased Manjunath? 3. Whether drier car No.KA-48/M-3703 was holding valid and effective D.L. and vehicle had valid insurance policy coverage on the date of accident? 4. Whether petitioners are entitled for the compensation as claimed? If so, to what extent? 5. What order or award? 8. In order to prove the claim petition averments, petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1, also examined one Maruti Mali as PW2, who is an eyewitness to the accident and got marked 6 documents as Exs.P1 to P6. Respondent No.1 got examined himself as RW1 and got marked one document as Ex.R1. The official of respondent No.2, Insurance Company was examined as RW2 and marked 12 documents as Exs.R2 to R13. 9. On cumulative consideration of the entire material on record and after hearing the parties, the tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation to the claimants in a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. 10. It is that judgment and award, which is under challenge by the appellant-Insurance Company and the appellants-claimants in these appeals. 11. 10. It is that judgment and award, which is under challenge by the appellant-Insurance Company and the appellants-claimants in these appeals. 11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently contended that the tribunal grossly erred in adding 50% of the income towards future prospects, whereas on this head maximum addition would be 40% as per the legal principles enunciated in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 . 12. He further contended that the tribunal has exorbitantly awarded compensation on all other heads and sought for reassessment of the compensation. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contended that the tribunal grossly erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- especially when the deceased was working as Supplier in Sagar Bar and Restaurant and was getting daily wages of Rs.500/- per day and in addition to that he was getting Rs.100/- by way of tips. He further contended that the tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards parental and filial consortium. Hence, he sought for reassessment of compensation by enhancing the same. 14. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, the following points that would arise for our consideration: (i) Whether addition of 50% towards future prospectus is correct? (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for parental and filial consortium? We answer point No.1 in the negative and point No.2 in the affirmative for the following: REASON 15. In the case on hand the accidental death of the deceased and the involvement of motorcycle bearing No.KA-48/R-8899 and the car bearing No.KA-48/M- 3703 on 13.10.2014 at 7:15 p.m. is not in dispute. On record, the Police investigation papers clearly mentions that it is a negligent act of the driver of the car, which is the cause for the said accident and the charge sheet amply prove the same. 16. In order to prove the monthly income of the deceased, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that the deceased was working as Supplier in Sagar Bar and Restaurant and was getting daily wages of Rs.500/- per day and in addition to that he was getting Rs.100/- by way of tips, but there is no documentary proof to prove the same nor examined the owner of the Sagar Bar and Restaurant as witness on behalf of the claimants. 17. 17. In the absence of any formal proof to establish the income of the deceased, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/-, which is proper and correct. Further, the tribunal has added 50% of the income towards future prospects as per the legal principles enunciated in the case of Munna Lal Jain Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma, (2015) ACJ 1985 . 18. The law in this regard is no longer res integra. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and Others (supra) enunciated that for the person, who is in the age group of below 40 years, maximum allowable addition is to an extent of 40% towards future prospects. 19. In the present case, the deceased was aged about 22 years as on the date of accident, as such he would be entitled for future prospects of 40% instead of 50% as taken by the tribunal. Therefore, the finding recorded by the tribunal that the deceased is entitled to future prospects for 50% is incorrect and the same needs to be modified. Further, the tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the income out of the adjudged monthly income towards his personal expenses, as he was a bachelor at the time of accident. The tribunal has also adopted appropriate multiplier of 18' considering the age of the deceased. Accordingly, loss of dependency would be Rs.11,34,000/- [Rs.7,500/- (income) + 40% (future prospects) - 50% (personal expenses) x 12 (months) x18 (multiplier)] 20. We also found from records that the tribunal had not awarded any compensation amount towards parental and filial consortium to the claimants as per the legal principles enunciated in the case of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd vs. Nanu Ram and others, (2018) ACJ 2782 . In the present case, the claimant Nos. 1 and 2 being parents of the deceased have lost their son in the evening of their life. Therefore, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards "loss of parental and filial consortium". 21. Further, the compensation awarded by the tribunal on conventional heads is on the lower side, hence, the claimants would be entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards conventional heads. 22. In view of the foregoing discussions, the claimant would be entitled to the following modified compensation. 21. Further, the compensation awarded by the tribunal on conventional heads is on the lower side, hence, the claimants would be entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards conventional heads. 22. In view of the foregoing discussions, the claimant would be entitled to the following modified compensation. Towards loss of dependency Rs.11,34,000/- Towards loss of parental and filial consortium Rs.80,000/- Towards conventional heads Rs.50,000/- TOTAL Rs.12,64,000/- 23. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,64,000/- as against Rs.12,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeals are allowed in part. (ii) sThe judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,64,000/- as against Rs.12,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. (iii) The respondent, Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount before the tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the amount in deposit, if any, to the tribunal for disbursement forthwith. (v) The apportionment, deposit and disbursement shall be as ordered by the tribunal in the same proportion. Draw the modified award accordingly.