JUDGMENT 1. Claimants in MVC.No.770/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura, have come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. In this proceedings, the contesting respondent insurer is neither denying the accident nor coverage of policy issued to the offending vehicle as on the date of accident. However, the lis before the Court is only with reference to quantum of compensation and rate of interest, to which the claimants are entitled to. 3. The records would indicate that one Boregowda, aged about 54 years met with an accident involving motor cycle on which he was travelling bearing registration No.KA-09/EF-8674 and another motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-05/MH-3244. Admittedly, the said accident took place on 9.4.2013 at about 5.00 pm., where the victim - Boregowda suffered grievous injuries, for which he was under treatment from 9.4.2013 to 11.7.2013, on which day, he succumbed to the injuries suffered in the accident. Thereafter, claim petition is filed by his widow and three children. 4. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the claimants contended that the deceased was an agriculturist, who was growing commercial crop, vegetables and other cash crops earning an income of Rs.15,000/- pm., he was the sole bread winner of the family and as such, they sought for compensation in a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. The claimants have also contended that they have spent nearly Rs.10,00,000/- for treatment of the victim - Boregowda from the date of accident till date of his death. The said claim petition was opposed by the insurer with reference to the accident, income and as well as entitlement of compensation, which was sought. 5. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the widow of deceased - Boregowda adduced evidence as PW.1. In support of her case, she also examined 3 other witnesses and produced in all 51 documents. Out of that, the documents at Ex.P1 to P4, and P6 are police documents with reference to accident. Ex.P5 is Discharge Summary, Ex.P7 is post mortem report, Ex.P8 is death certificate and Exs.P9 to P51 are other documents issued by the hospital, where the victim was admitted from the date of accident till date of his death. 6. Out of that, the documents at Ex.P1 to P4, and P6 are police documents with reference to accident. Ex.P5 is Discharge Summary, Ex.P7 is post mortem report, Ex.P8 is death certificate and Exs.P9 to P51 are other documents issued by the hospital, where the victim was admitted from the date of accident till date of his death. 6. After recording of evidence, on appreciation of the material available on record the Tribunal proceeded to allow the claim petition awarding compensation in a sum of Rs.14,97,650/-, which includes medical expenses to the tune of Rs.9,17,650/-. The claimants being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation have come up in this appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and as well as contesting respondent insurer. Perused the material available on record. On going through the same, it is seen that though the claimants contended that deceased - Boregowda was an agriculturist having monthly income of Rs.15,000/-, they were not able to produce any document in support of that. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income that is normally considered by the Legal Services Authority with reference to victims whose income and employment is not established by the claimants. 8. In the instant case, since the accident has taken place in the year 2013, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.8,000/- pm., and considering the deceased was aged 54 years as on that date 10% future prospects should have been considered. If it is analyzed in the aforesaid manner, then the notional income would be Rs.8,800/- pm., in other words, Rs.1,05,600/- pa. Out of this, the dependent members on the deceased being his widow and his unmarried daughter, the family would be only 3 persons. Therefore, only 1/3rd should have been taken as deduction towards personal upkeep of the deceased. If that is taken into consideration, loss of dependency available to the family is Rs.70,400/- pa. In the instant case, relevant multiplier being 11, the total loss of dependency to the family would be Rs.7,74,400/-, to which another sum of Rs.70,000/- is required to be added towards compensation payable under conventional head, thereby taking the compensation payable at Rs.8,44,400/-, which is in addition to the reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred in a sum of Rs.9,17,650/-. In the instant case, relevant multiplier being 11, the total loss of dependency to the family would be Rs.7,74,400/-, to which another sum of Rs.70,000/- is required to be added towards compensation payable under conventional head, thereby taking the compensation payable at Rs.8,44,400/-, which is in addition to the reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred in a sum of Rs.9,17,650/-. With this, the total amount that the claimants would be entitled to receive from the respondent - insurer would be Rs.17,62,050/-. 9. Out of the total compensation, so far as compensation amount of Rs.8,44,400/- awarded towards loss of dependency is concerned, the claimants would be entitled to receive the same with interest at 6% pa., from the date of accident till date of payment. So far as the amount of compensation awarded towards reimbursement of medical expenses at Rs.9,17,650/- is concerned, the claimants would be entitled to receive the same with interest at 9% pa., for the reason that, the said amount is already spent by them probably by raising loan from others or mobilizing funds in any other manner, for which they may have to pay interest. Therefore, in the reassessed compensation, the interest portion is 9% pa., for Rs.9,17,650/- and 6% pa., for the compensation which is at Rs.8,44,400/-. The interest shall be payable from the date of petition till date of payment. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed. 10. So far as apportionment is concerned, it is required to be modified in awarding 60% to the wife, 10% each to the daughters and 20% to the son. In view of the appeal being disposed off on merits, applications in IA.I/2019 and IA.2/2019 do not survive for consideration.