JUDGMENT N.S. Sanjay Gowda, J. - The claimants are the wife and minor daughters of Shivanagouda Patel who was ki l led in an accident on 06.01.2011 when he was travel ing in Tempo Trax vehicle bearing registration No.KA- 37/8496. 2. The factum of the accident is not in dispute. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the claimants would be entitled for a sum of Rs.3,77,000/-. 3. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the deceased was aged 42 years and that his monthly income was required to be taken as Rs.3,000/- since there was no credible evidence to establ ish this fact. The Tribunal, however, exonerated the l iabi lity of the insurance company on the grounds that the driver of the Tempo Trax did not possess a valid driving l icence to drive a transport vehicle. 4. In fact, it is submitted that the appeal f i led by the insurance company in respect of other claimants chal lenging the l iabil ity has already been dismissed by this Court in M.F.A.No.100738/2016. 5. The f inding of the Tribunal insofar as exonerating the liabi l ity of the insurance company is concerned cannot be sustained in view of the decision rendered by Apex Court in case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2016) 4 SCC 298 and also decision rendered in the companion appeals relating to the same accident in M.F.A. Nos. 24193/2012, 24194/2012, 24195/2012 24196/2012, 24197/2012 & 24199/2012. 6. As a result, the finding of the Tribunal regarding the exoneration of the l iabil ity of insurance company is set aside and it is held that the insurance company would be l iable for the compensation awarded. 7. The Tribunal has found that the deceased was aged 42 years and his monthly income was required to be at Rs.3,000/- since there was no evidence to establ ish his actual income. 8. In my view, in a situation, where there is no evidence to establ ish income of the deceased, it would be prudent the monthly income determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which would be a sum of Rs. 6,000/-, in respect of motor vehicle accidents which occurred in the year 2011. 9. Accordingly the monthly income of deceased is taken as Rs.6,000/-. 6,000/-, in respect of motor vehicle accidents which occurred in the year 2011. 9. Accordingly the monthly income of deceased is taken as Rs.6,000/-. Since the deceased was aged 42 years, a factor of 25% is required to be added to the said monthly income on account of Future Prospects as held by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi. As a result the monthly income of the deceased would have to be considered as Rs.7,500/- and out of this sum of Rs.7,500/-, 1/3rd is required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, which ultimately results in monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.5,000/-. 10. As the deceased was aged 42 years, a multipl ier of 14 is required to be adopted. Thus the claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs,5,000 x 12 x 14 i.e. Rs.8,40,000/-. 11. To this sum, claimants are entitled the sum of Rs.33,000/- under conventional heads as determined by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 5157. 12. In addition, each of the claimants would be entitled of sum of Rs.44,000/- towards love and affection in view of the decision rendered in Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Limited v. Nanu Ram and Others, (2018) ACJ 2782 . 13. Thus, in al l, the claimants would be entitled to the fol lowing sums: Towards loss of dependency Rs. 8,40,000/- Towards conventional heads Rs. 33,000/- Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 1,32,000/- ____________ Total Rs. 10,05,000/- _____________ The said amount shal l carry interest @6% p.a. from the date of petition ti l l the date of payment. 14. The insurance company is directed to pay/deposit the said compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the receipt of a copy of this order. The appeal is thus al lowed in part.