JUDGMENT S.G.Pandit, J. - Both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and award, dated 19.01.2015 passed in M.V.C. No.2754 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bailhongal (for short 'the Tribunal'). M.F.A. No.101123/2015 is by the claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation and praying for enhancement of compensation. M.F.A. No.101261/2015 is by the North-West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation', for short) challenging saddling of liability on it. 2. The claimants are the wife, children and mother of Mahadevappa Bhimarayappa Kalagaggari who died in a road traffic accident. A claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation for the accidental death of Mahadevappa Bhimarayappa Kalagaggari in a road traffic accident that occurred on 31.08.2012 involving TVS motorcycle bearing No.KA- 24/K-1672 and NWKRTC bus bearing No.KA-22/F-1764. It is contended that the deceased Mahadevappa Bhimarayappa Kalagaggari was aged 25 years as on the date of the accident and was doing mason work and agricultural work earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month. On issuance of notice, the respondent- Corporation appeared and filed its objections. The respondent-Corporation, while denying the entire claim petition averments, specifically contended that there was no accident involving the NWKRTC bus bearing No.KA- 22/F-1764. It contended that the bus had left Belgaum at 1.50 p.m. and reached Bailhongal at 3.00 p.m. and again, on the same day, the said bus returned to Belgaum from Bailhongal and there was no accident. Further, it also contended that there was a delay of 11 days in lodging the complaint. 3. The claimants, in support of their case, examined claimant No.1, the wife of the deceased Mahadevappa Bhimarayappa Kalagaggari, as P.W.1 and an eyewitness, who was also a passenger of the said bus, as P.W.2, apart from marking the documents as Exs.P.1 to P.25. The respondent-Corporation examined the driver of the bus as R.W.1 and marked the documents as Exs.R.1 and R.2. The Tribunal, on analyzing the entire material placed before it, awarded a total compensation of Rs.17,56,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation, on the following heads: S. No. Head Amount 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 16,06,500/- 2. The Tribunal, on analyzing the entire material placed before it, awarded a total compensation of Rs.17,56,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation, on the following heads: S. No. Head Amount 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 16,06,500/- 2. Loss of estate, loss of love and care, loss of consortium, transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies. Rs. 1,50,000/- Total Rs. 17,56,500/- While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month, added 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects, deducted 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and applied multiplier of 17'. Further, the Tribunal directed the respondent- Corporation to deposit the entire compensation. 4. The claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, are before this Court in this appeal praying for enhancement of the compensation, whereas the respondent- Corporation is before this Court questioning the liability saddled on it as well as the quantum. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the Corporation. Perused the trial Court records. 6. The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.7,000/- per month is on the lower side and prays for enhancement of the same. It is his submission that the deceased was doing masonry work as well as the agricultural work. Learned counsel while inviting the attention of this Court to Ex.P.12-certificate issued by the employer viz., Ashok M.Maski, a Class-I Contractor, submitted that the deceased was working under Ashok M.Maski as a skill and designer mason since 05.03.2010 and that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.14,000/- per month. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court also to Exs.P.15 to P.21-RTCs and submitted that the said documents would indicate that the deceased was possessing agricultural land. Therefore, he submits that the Tribunal, ignoring the said documents and the evidence of P.W.1, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month which is on the lower side and prays for reassessing the monthly income on the higher side. Learned counsel furthers submits that claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the children and claimant No.5 is the mother of the deceased and, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Learned counsel furthers submits that claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the children and claimant No.5 is the mother of the deceased and, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Limited v. Nanu Ram and Others, (2018) ACJ 2782 , claimant Nos.2 to 5 would be entitled for the compensation on the head of parental and filial consortium. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal (MFA No.101123/2015). 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the Tribunal failed to consider the contentions raised by the Corporation that the bus was falsely implicated in the accident and the bus was not at all involved in the accident. He further submits that there was a delay of 11 days in lodging the complaint by the wife of the deceased. The learned counsel invites the attention of this Court to the evidence of R.W.1, the driver of the bus, who states that on 31.08.2012, the concerned bus had left Belgaum at 1.50 p.m. and reached Bailhongal at 3.00 p.m. and, on the same day, it returned to Belagavi and that there was no accident involving the said bus. He submits that the Tribunal ignoring the said evidence of R.W.1 has held that the accident had taken place involving NWKRTC bus and held the Corporation liable to pay the compensation and directed the Corporation to deposit the same. 8. With regard to quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects since in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) ACJ 2700 , the claimants would be entitled for addition of only 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. It is his further submission that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on the conventional heads, whereas the claimants would be entitled to Rs.70,000/- only. Thus, he prays for modifying the judgment and award under the appeal. 9. It is his further submission that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on the conventional heads, whereas the claimants would be entitled to Rs.70,000/- only. Thus, he prays for modifying the judgment and award under the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the trial Court records, the following points would arise for our consideration in both the appeals: i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the contention of the Corporation that the bus bearing No.KA- 22/F-1764 was not involved in the accident and thereby saddling the entire liability on the Corporation? ii) Whether the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.7,000/- per month is proper and correct? iii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in awarding compensation on the head of future prospects at the rate of 50% of the assessed income? iv) Whether the claimants would be entitled for enhancement of the compensation? 10. Answer to point Nos.i), ii) and iv) would be in the affirmative and answer to point No.iii) would be in the negative, for the following reasons: Point No.i): The claimants are the wife, children and mother of the deceased Mahadevappa Bhimarayappa Kalagaggari. The claimants contend that the accident had taken place on 31.08.2012 involving TVS motorcycle bearing No.KA-24/K-1672 and the NWKRTC bus bearing No.KA-22/F-1764. On the other hand, the Corporation contends that the aforesaid NWKRTC bus was not at all involved in the accident and further the Corporation denies the occurrence of accident itself. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the bus bearing No.KA-22/F-1764 was involved in the accident. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the Corporation contended that the said finding is against the material on record. Further, he also contended that there was a delay of 11 days in lodging the complaint and also invited our attention to the evidence of R.W.1 the driver of the bus, who stated that the bus was not involved in the accident on that particular day i.e. 31.08.2012. Ex.P.1 is the complaint lodged before the police by one Mallikarjuna Kashappa Kalagaggari on the same day i.e., 31.08.2012. The FIR-Ex.P.2 is also registered on 31.08.2012 itself. The concerned Court receives the FIR on 01.09.2012, which is endorsed on Ex.P.2. Thus, it is clear that there was no delay in lodging the complaint. Ex.P.1 is the complaint lodged before the police by one Mallikarjuna Kashappa Kalagaggari on the same day i.e., 31.08.2012. The FIR-Ex.P.2 is also registered on 31.08.2012 itself. The concerned Court receives the FIR on 01.09.2012, which is endorsed on Ex.P.2. Thus, it is clear that there was no delay in lodging the complaint. The learned counsel for the Corporation is not able to substantiate his contention that there was a delay of 11 days in lodging the complaint. The Motor Vehicle Inspection Report at Ex.P.6 would indicate that right side front portion of the bus was damaged. Ex.P.5- sketch would indicate that the bus was proceedings from West to East from Belgaum to Bailhongal. On careful perusal of the sketch-Ex.P.5, it reveals that the bus had taken to the extreme right side and dashed the motorcycle. From the material on record and on re-assessment of the evidence i.e. Exs.P.1, P.2, P.5 and P.6, we are of the view that there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the Corporation that the bus was not at all involved in the accident. Accordingly, point No.i) is answered in the affirmative. Point No.ii): The accident is of the year 2012. The Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.7,000/- is on the lower side, whereas the learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that the notional income assessed is on the higher side since the notional income of a person assessed by this Court and the Lok Adalats, while settling the accidental claims of the year 2012, is Rs.6,500/- per month. From the material on record, we feel that the notional income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.7,000/- per month is proper and correct. The claimants have placed on record Ex.P.12-certificate issued by Ashok M.Maski, an Engineer and Class-I Contractor, certifying that the deceased was working under him as a skill and designer mason since 05.03.2010 and he was paying Rs.14,000/- per month as salary. However, the author of the said document is not examined. Learned counsel for the claimants also relied upon Exs.P.15 to P.21, which are the RTCs, to establish that the deceased possessed landed property. However, the author of the said document is not examined. Learned counsel for the claimants also relied upon Exs.P.15 to P.21, which are the RTCs, to establish that the deceased possessed landed property. Taking note of the entire material on record, we are of the opinion that the deceased would have earned more than Rs.6,500/- per month and the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.7,000/- needs no interference. Point No.iii): The Tribunal has awarded compensation on the head of 'future prospects' at the rate of 50% of the assessed income. The deceased was aged 25 years as on the date of the accident. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), has held that the claimants would be entitled for addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects, where the deceased was below the age of 40 years and was not having any permanent employment or permanent/fixed income. In the instant case, the deceased was below the age of 40 years and he was not having a permanent job with permanent/fixed income. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled for addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. In the present case, the dependants are five in numbers and as such, the deduction made by the Tribunal at 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses is just and proper and the same needs no interference. On taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month, adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects, deducting 1/4th of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier 17', the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.14,99,400/- towards 'loss of dependency' (including future prospects). 11. The learned counsel for the Corporation contended that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding Rs.1,50,000/- on the conventional heads and submits that the claimants would be entitled for a sum of Rs.70,000/- on the conventional heads. There is some force in the said submission of the learned counsel for the Corporation, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- only on the conventional heads. 12. Claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the children of the deceased. There is some force in the said submission of the learned counsel for the Corporation, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- only on the conventional heads. 12. Claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the children of the deceased. They have lost their father at their young age and also have lost the love and affection, care, guidance and protection of their father. Claimant No.5 is the mother of the deceased who has lost her son at the evening of her life. Hence, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd's case (supra), claimant Nos.2 to 5 would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards parental and filial consortium. 13. On reassessment, the claimants would be entitled for the following modified compensation: S. No. Head Amount 1. Loss of dependency (including future prospects) Rs. 14,99,400/- 2. Conventional Heads Rs. 70,000/- 3. Parental and filial consortium (to claimant Nos. 2 to 5 at Rs.40,000 each) Rs. 1,60,000/- Total Rs. 17,29,400/- Thus, in all, the claimants would be entitled to a total/reduced compensation of Rs.17,29,400/-, as against Rs.17,56,500/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 19.01.2015 passed in M.V.C. No.2754/2012 passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified. The claimants are entitled to a total/reduced compensation of Rs.17,29,400/-, as against Rs.17,56,500/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The apportionment and deposit of the compensation among the claimants shall be in the proportion as ordered by the Tribunal. The amount in deposit before this Court be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.