JUDGMENT S.G. Pandit, J. - Both the claimants and insurer are in appeal assailing the judgment and award dated 3.8.2015 passed in MVC No.237/2013 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Member, Addl. MACT, Dharwad (for short, 'Tribunal'). 2. The claimants are in appeal being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and praying for enhancement of compensation. Whereas, the insurer is in appeal on the question of liability saddled on it and also on the quantum. 3. The claimants are parents and sister of the deceased Srikrishna S Devaramani. A claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the accidental death of Srikrishna S Devaramani in a road traffic accident on 6.11.2012 involving motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-05-HU-8420 and lorry bearing registration No.KA-14-A-7090. The accident involving the above vehicles and accidental death of the deceased is not in dispute in these appeals. In the claim petition, it is stated that the deceased was working as a Software Engineer in Nokia Siemens Networks at Bengaluru and getting a salary of Rs.70,000/- per month. It is further stated that the deceased was a bachelor and aged about 23 years as on the date of the accident. The insurance company in its statement contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle i.e. deceased. It further contended that the deceased was not holding valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident. 4. The claimants in support of their claim examined the claimant No.1-father of the deceased as PW1 and two other witnesses as PW2 and PW3 apart from marking the documents as per Exs.P1 to P15. On behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company, Ex.R1- insurance policy was marked with consent. The Tribunal on analyzing the material placed before it, awarded total compensation of Rs.33,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till its realization on the following heads: Loss of dependency Rs.32,40,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs.50,000/- Loss of estate Rs.50,000/- Transportation, funeral and Obsequies Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.33,90,000/- While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per month, deducting 50% of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and adopted multiplier of 18. Further, the Tribunal saddled liability on both the respondents and directed the respondent No.2-Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount. 5. The claimants are in appeal praying for enhancement of compensation, whereas the insurance company is in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation as well as saddling of liability on it. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and learned counsel for the insurance company. Perused the trial Court records. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the Tribunal committed grave error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- by referring to Exs.P11 to P13-salary slips of the deceased. Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal ought to have taken note of Basic Salary, HRA and other perquisites received by the deceased. If other perquisites are taken note of, the income of the deceased will have to be enhanced on higher side. Further, he would submit that the compensation awarded on the other heads are also on the lower side. Thus, he prays for enhancement of compensation by allowing the appeal filed by the claimants. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company would submit that the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side and prays for reducing the same. Learned counsel referring to Exs.P11 to P13 would submit that for assessing net salary, Basic pay and HRA are to be taken into consideration and conveyance allowance and supplementary allowance indicated in Ex.P11 to P13 cannot be taken into account for arriving at net salary. Thus, he prays for assessing the salary by taking Basic pay and HRA only. Further, learned counsel would submit that addition of 50% awarded on the head of future prospects is not proper. It is his submission that the deceased had not completed his probation and he was not confirmed in the company where he was working. Since, it was not a permanent job, the Tribunal could not have added 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects. Learned counsel submits that the compensation awarded on the other heads are also on the higher side. The claimants would be entitled to Rs.70,000/- on the conventional heads as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 . 9. Learned counsel submits that the compensation awarded on the other heads are also on the higher side. The claimants would be entitled to Rs.70,000/- on the conventional heads as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 . 9. With regard to liability, learned counsel submits that the accident took place solely due to negligence of the rider of the motor cycle i.e. deceased. Referring to Ex.P8-certified copy of the judgment in CC No.379/2013, wherein the driver of Lorry in question is acquitted of the charges under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, the Tribunal could not have saddled the liability on the insurance company. The Tribunal ought to have independently determined the liability or negligence. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal of the insurance company by setting aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 10. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the trial Court records, the following points would arise for consideration in both the appeals: a) Whether the Tribunal is justified in saddling the liability jointly on respondents 1 and 2 and directing respondent No.2-insurance company to deposit the compensation amount? b) Whether the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.20,000/- of the deceased is proper and correct? c) Whether the claimants would be entitled for adding 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects? 11. Our answer to the point No.1 is in the affirmative and points No.2 and 3 in the negative for the following reasons: 12. The accident which occurred on 6.11.2012 involving the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-05- HU-8420 and lorry bearing registration No.KA-14-A- 7090 and accidental death of the deceased Srikrishna S Devaramani are not in dispute in these appeals. The insurance company is in appeal questioning the liability saddled on it on the ground that the accident had taken place solely due to negligence of the rider of the motor cycle i.e. deceased. Learned counsel contended that since the driver of the lorry was exonerated of the charges, the Tribunal is not justified in saddling the liability on the respondents jointly and directing the respondent No.2-Insurance Company to make good compensation. 13. Learned counsel contended that since the driver of the lorry was exonerated of the charges, the Tribunal is not justified in saddling the liability on the respondents jointly and directing the respondent No.2-Insurance Company to make good compensation. 13. It is settled law that the judgment in criminal case would be of no consequence or would have no binding in the proceedings before the Tribunal. Ex.P8 is the certified copy of the judgment in CC No.379/2013 wherein the driver of the lorry was acquitted of the charges under Sections 379 and 304A of IPC. Merely because the driver of the lorry is acquitted of the charges leveled against him, it cannot be said that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle. Negligence is to be independently determined by the Tribunal. Ex.P2 is the complaint filed by Police Constable, B Shivakumar who was an eye-witness to the accident. Ex.P4 is the spot mahazar and Ex.P5 is the sketch of the spot of the accident which would clearly indicate that the lorry was proceeding from East to West; while moving, it crossed middle of the lane and went to the right side and hit the motor cycle of the deceased. Ex.P2-complaint clearly discloses that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal after examining the material on record has independently determined the negligence and has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident had taken place solely due to negligence of the driver of the lorry in question. As such, we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company with regard to the finding on the liability. 14. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the insurance company contended that for arriving at net salary of the deceased, only Basic pay and HRA is to be added and other allowances received by the deceased cannot be added to determine the gross salary. It is well settled law that while computing the net salary or gross salary, apart from Basic pay and HRA, all other perquisites are to be included except allowances which are not regularly receivable. It is well settled law that while computing the net salary or gross salary, apart from Basic pay and HRA, all other perquisites are to be included except allowances which are not regularly receivable. In the instant case, Exs.P11 to P13-salary slips for the months of July to September, 2012 contains component of Basic pay, HRA, Conveyance allowance and Supplementary allowance. Basic salary indicated in Exs.P12 and P13 is Rs.13,492, HRA-Rs.6,746 and conveyance allowance was Rs.800. Whereas, there is variation in supplementary allowance as indicated in Exs.P11 to P13. It appears that supplementary allowance varies every month. PW3, on behalf of the company in which the deceased was working, has not stated anything about supplementary allowance shown in Exs.P11 to P13. Since the supplementary allowance has been indicated in all the three documents i.e. Exs.P11 to P13, the same is to be taken for determining gross salary. As such, the Tribunal had rightly taken supplementary allowance of Rs.4,961/- as indicated in Ex.P11, which is at minimum, we deem it proper and correct, since supplementary allowance in Ex.P12 and P13 are on higher side. Of course, out of the salary income, professional tax and income tax are to be deducted. Ex.P11 indicates professional tax of Rs.150 and no income tax is deducted from the salary. If the Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per month which would be Rs.2,40,000/- per annum. The said amount was exempted from the tax liability as per the income tax slab for the year 2012. Thus, out of gross salary of Rs.19,213/- as shown in Ex.P11, Rs.150/- is to be deducted as professional tax. If the same is deducted, net salary would be Rs.19,063/-. Thus, monthly income of the deceased could be taken at Rs.19,063/- for determining the compensation. 15. The Tribunal had added 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects. Learned counsel for the insurance company contended that the claimants would not be entitled for adding 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects, since the deceased was not in permanent job. Referring to the evidence of PW3-employer, learned counsel submits that the deceased was not in permanent employment and his probationary period was not completed. As such, the claimants would not be entitled for adding 50% towards future prospects referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 16. Referring to the evidence of PW3-employer, learned counsel submits that the deceased was not in permanent employment and his probationary period was not completed. As such, the claimants would not be entitled for adding 50% towards future prospects referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 16. It is true that PW3 in his evidence has stated that the deceased Srikrishna S Devaramani was on probation. It is further stated that only after successful probationary period, service of the deceased would have been confirmed. As such, it can be said that the deceased was not confirmed in his job in the company where he was working as a Software Engineer. Wherever, the deceased was below the age of 40 years, who was not having permanent employment, as held in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the claimants would be entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. Since the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal had deducted 50% of the assessed income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and adopted multiplier of 18, which in our view is proper and correct. 17. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled for Rs.50,000/- on the conventional heads. The claimants 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Others (Civil Appeal No.2705/2020, decided on 30.06.2020), it has held that filial consortium is the right of the parents and observed that death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The parents have lost their son in the evening of their life and also love and affection. Thus, they would be entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on the head 'parental consortium'. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for the following modified compensation: Loss of dependency including future prospects Rs.19,063 +40% = Rs.26,688 = Rs.26,688 50% = Rs.13,344 x 12 x 18 = Rs.28,82,304/- Filial consortium = Rs.80,000/- Conventional head = Rs.50,000/- Total = Rs.30,12,304/- 18. Thus, they would be entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on the head 'parental consortium'. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for the following modified compensation: Loss of dependency including future prospects Rs.19,063 +40% = Rs.26,688 = Rs.26,688 50% = Rs.13,344 x 12 x 18 = Rs.28,82,304/- Filial consortium = Rs.80,000/- Conventional head = Rs.50,000/- Total = Rs.30,12,304/- 18. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.30,12,304/- as against Rs.33,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization. 19. In the result, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) Appeal filed by the claimants is dismissed. b) Appeal filed by the insurance company is allowed in part. c) The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.30,12,304/- as against Rs.33,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization. d) Apportionment, deposit and disbursement of the compensation amount shall be made as per the order of the Tribunal. e) The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith for disbursement. f) Draw the modified award accordingly.