JUDGMENT B.Veerappa, J. - Mfa No.4800/2014 is filed by the Insurance Company to set aside the judgment and award and MFA No.1797/2015 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, against the judgment and award dated 26.03.2014 made in MVC No.127/2013 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VII, Shimoga, awarding a total compensation of Rs.10,89,200/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. I. FACTS OF THE CASE < p> 2. It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that the claimants are the mother and brother of the deceased G.R.Krishnamurthy. On 07.12.2011, the deceased G.R.Krishnamurthy, Junior Engineer, Jala Samvardhana Yojana Sangha, District Project Unit, Shivamogga, an undertaking of the Karnataka Government, was returning from Shivamogga after attending an official meeting in a TATA Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.KA.14-A-2740. Near Chamundipura village on Ayanoor-Ripponpet Road, the Bus bearing registration No.KA.17-A-7184 belonging to respondent No.2, driven by respondents No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and with a high speed, dashed against the said TATA Sumo vehicle in which the deceased G.R.Krishnamurthy and others were traveling. The deceased was seriously injured and he was first admitted to Mac. Gann Hospital and thereafter, shifted to Nanjappa Hospital and later, he was shifted to Kasturba Hospital, Manipal for higher treatment. But, he could not respond to the treatment and died on 09.12.2011 in Kasturba Hospital itself. The monthly income of the deceased was Rs.15,750/- as gross salary and Rs.15,000/- from consultation, totally a sum of Rs.30,750/-. The accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus by respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 is vicariously liable being the owner of the vehicle and respondent No.3 being the Insurer of the offending vehicle, is responsible to pay the compensation. Therefore, the claimants have filed the claim petition claiming a total compensation of Rs.40,95,000/-. II. OBJECTIONS FILED BY RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 3. In response to the service of notice, respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared before the Court. Respondent No.1 has filed his objections and the same has been adopted by respondent No.2 and respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed its objections separately. 4. II. OBJECTIONS FILED BY RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 3. In response to the service of notice, respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared before the Court. Respondent No.1 has filed his objections and the same has been adopted by respondent No.2 and respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed its objections separately. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that respondent No.1 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and that was the cause for the accident. They pleaded ignorance about the relationship of the claimants with the deceased and the avocation of the deceased and other details. Even they have pleaded ignorance about the status of the deceased. They specifically contended that they are not responsible to answer the claim of the claimants. The vehicle is insured with respondent No.3-Insurance Company and if the Court comes to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for any compensation, respondent No.3 is liable to pay the same. 5. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company has filed its objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary party i.e. owner and the driver of the TATA Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.KA.14-A-2740 in which the deceased was traveling. The claimants are not dependents of the deceased and the compensation is exorbitant, exaggerated and imaginary. It is denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. It is also denied that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.15,750/- as salary and Rs.15,000/- per month from consultation. The accident actually occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TATA Sumo vehicle and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. III. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE TRIBUNAL 6. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (i) Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased G.R.Krishnamurthy? (ii) Whether the petitioners prove that G.R.Krishnamurthy died in a road traffic accident that occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus bearing regn.no.KA.17-A-7184 by the 1st respondent on 7-12-2011 at 7.15 p.m., near Chamundipura, Ayanooar-Ripponpet road? (iii) Whether the 3rd respondent proves that the petition is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties? (iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed? If so, from whom? (v)What order or Award? IV. WITNESSES EXAMINED 7. (iii) Whether the 3rd respondent proves that the petition is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties? (iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed? If so, from whom? (v)What order or Award? IV. WITNESSES EXAMINED 7. In order to prove their case, claimant No.2 was examined as P.W.1 and an independent witness was examined as P.W.2 and marked the documents as Exs.P.1 to P.20. Respondent No.1 was examined as RW.1 and marked the documents as Exs.R1 and R2. V. FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL 8. The Tribunal, considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded the finding that the claimants have proved that they are the legal heirs of the deceased G.R.Krishnamurthy and also proved that the deceased G.R.Krishnamurthy died in a road traffic accident that occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus bearing registration No.KA.17-A-7184 by respondent No.1 on 07.12.2011. Respondent No.3 has failed to prove that the petition is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. Accordingly, the Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award has proceeded to award the total compensation of Rs.10,89,200/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has filed MFA No.4800/2014 to set aside the impugned judgment and award and the claimants have filed MFA No.1797/2015 for enhancement of compensation. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. VI. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANY 10. Sri A.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal awarding a total compensation of Rs.10,89,200/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. and directing the appellant herein to pay the same, is not based on proper appreciation of pleadings, evidence and documents and the same is liable to be set aside. He would further contend that the deceased was traveling from Ayanoor to Ripponpet and the bus was coming from opposite direction and accident having occurred almost in the middle of the road and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered the question of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car. He would further contend that the deceased was traveling from Ayanoor to Ripponpet and the bus was coming from opposite direction and accident having occurred almost in the middle of the road and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered the question of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.25,050/- even though it is stated and proved as per Ex.P18 that he was working on contract basis in Jala Samvardhan Yojana Sangha, District Project Unit, Shivamogga on a fixed monthly salary of Rs.15,750/- p.m. The Tribunal has taken a sum of Rs.10,000/- as an additional income stating that he is also advising another contractor without any basis. Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and to dismiss the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement. VII. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR CLAIMANTS 11. Per contra, Ms.Vikshitha, learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future prospects and the Tribunal considering the age of the mother of the deceased has taken the multiplier as 7' and the same is erroneous, in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma, (2015) 6 SCC 347 , the age of the deceased has to be considered for applying the multiplier. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have taken the multiplier as 14' instead 7'. She would further contend that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards love and affection to the mother. The award passed by the Tribunal in respect of the conventional heads is on the lower side. Therefore, she sought to allow the appeal filed by the claimants and to dismiss the appeal filed by the insurance company. VIII. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 12. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for our consideration in the present appeals are: (i) Whether the appellant-Insurance Company in MFA No.4800/2014 has made out any prima facie case to set aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal? VIII. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 12. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for our consideration in the present appeals are: (i) Whether the appellant-Insurance Company in MFA No.4800/2014 has made out any prima facie case to set aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal? (ii) Whether the claimants who are the appellants in MFA No.1797/2015 have made out any prima facie case for further enhancement of compensation, in the facts and circumstances of the case? 13. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material including the original records, carefully. IX. CONSIDERATION 14. It is not in dispute that the deceased G.R.Krishnamurthy was working as a Junior Engineer on contract basis at Jala Samvardhana Yojana Sangha, District Project Unit, Shivamogga and the accident occurred on 07.12.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus bearing registration No.KA-.14-A-2740, by respondent No.1. The jurisdictional Police registered a criminal case against respondent No.1 as can be seen from Exs.P1 to P6 issued by the officials during the course of their official business and presumption has to be drawn in favour of the claimants. 15. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs.15,750/- as gross salary and Rs.15,000/- from consultation, totally a sum of Rs.30,750/-. The Tribunal was not justified in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.25,050/- as the salary certificate depicts only Rs.15,050/-. Though Ex.P20- certificate has been produced, the claimants have not produced any document to show that the deceased or the person who issued Ex.P20-certificate was paying the income tax to the said amounts. In the absence of the same, the Tribunal was not justified to take the income of the deceased at Rs.25,050/- per month while passing the impugned judgment and award. 16. It is also not in dispute that the Insurance Company has not challenged the liability and has not disputed the insurance policy was in force as on the date of the accident. The Insurance Company has only challenged the quantum of compensation. 17. In view of the salary certificate as per Ex.P20, it is just and proper to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.15,750/-. The Insurance Company has only challenged the quantum of compensation. 17. In view of the salary certificate as per Ex.P20, it is just and proper to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.15,750/-. Further, 25% of the salary has to be added to calculate the loss of future prospects in view of the Constitutional Bench dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) AIR SC 5157 and 25% of Rs.15,750/- would be Rs.3,937/-. Thus, the income of the deceased would be Rs.15,750/- + Rs.3,937/- = Rs.19,687/-. Admittedly, the deceased was a bachelor. Therefore, 50% has to be deducted towards his personal expenses, in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , which would come to Rs.9,843/-. If the age of the deceased i.e. 42 years is taken in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier would be 14'. Accordingly, the loss of dependency would be Rs.9,843/- x 12 x 14 = Rs.16,53,624/-. 18. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards love and affection, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation of dead body and the same are required to be enhanced in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur,2020 SCCOnLine(SC) 410 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded the compensation towards funeral expenses-Rs.15,000/- and parental consortium-Rs.40,000/- each relying upon the judgments in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 . 19. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.70,000/- plus 10% for three years i.e., Rs.7,000/-, totally Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads. X ENTITLEMENT 20. For the reasons stated above, the first point raised for consideration in these appeals is answered in the negative holding that the Insurance Company has not made out a case to set aside the impugned judgment and award and the second point raised for consideration is answered in the affirmative holding that the claimants have made out a case for enhancement of compensation. The trial Court has awarded a sum of Rs.17,100/- towards medical bills/expenses and the same is justified. 21. The trial Court has awarded a sum of Rs.17,100/- towards medical bills/expenses and the same is justified. 21. After re-assessing both oral and documentary evidence on record, the claimants are entitled to the compensation as under: Loss of dependency Rs.16,53,624.00 Medical expenses Rs. 17,100.00 Love and affection towards mother 40,000 Funeral expenses 15,000 Loss of estate 15,000 70,000 Add: 10% 7,000 Rs. 77,000.00 Total Rs.17,47,724.00 XI. RESULT 22. For the reasons stated above, both the appeals are disposed of. The impugned judgment and award dated 26.03.2014 made in MVC No.127/2013 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VII, Shimoga, is modified. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.17,47,724/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization, as against Rs.10,89,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. 23. It is made clear that, in view of the order dated 07.07.2015 passed by this Court in MFA.No.1797/2015, the claimants are not entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for the delayed period of 218 days in filing the appeal. 24. The amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only) deposited by the Insurance Company before this Court in pursuance of the Order dated 12.11.2014 and the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- made at the time of filing the Appeal shall be transferred to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith. 25. The Insurance Company shall deposit the remaining compensation amount on the basis of the enhancement made by this Court, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Out of the enhanced compensation amount, claimant No.1 i.e. the mother of the deceased is entitled for 80% and claimant No.2 i.e. the brother of the deceased is entitled for 20%. The apportionment of the enhanced compensation shall be made in terms of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Ordered accordingly. No order as to costs.