JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal filed by the claimants challenging not only the exoneration of the insurance company from satisfying the award but also claiming enhancement of compensation. 2. The case of the claimants was that their brother Somashekhar was traveling in a Tempo Trax vehicle bearing registration No.KA-37/8496 from Gangavathi to Koppal, when the driver of the vehicle hit a tree, as a result of which, Somashekhar died and some of the other passengers also died while some other passengers suffered in juries. 3. It is their case that the deceased Somashekhara was the sole bread winner and they were entitled to a just compensation on account of his death. 4. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the accident did occur on account of the rash and negligent driving of Tempo Trax vehicle which had resulted in the death of Somashekhar. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to a sum of Rs.31,000/-. The Tribunal took the view that the claimants being sisters of Somashekar could not be his dependents and therefore awarded no compensation towards loss of dependency. 5. The Tribunal also took the view that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive a transport vehicle and there fore exonerated the liability of the insurance company from satisfying the award. 6. It cannot be in dispute that the question regarding liability will have to be held against the insurance company in view of the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2016) 4 SCC 298 7. In fact, it is submitted that the appeal filed by the insurance company in respect of other claimants challenging the liability has already been dismissed by this Court in M.F.A.No.100738/2016. 8. As a consequence, the award insofar as it relates to exonerating the insurance company from satisfying the award will have to be set aside and the insurance company is thus saddled with the liability for payment of the compensation. 9. As far as compensation is concerned, the claimants, are the unmarried sisters of deceased Somashekhar, who was himself unmarried. Admittedly, the parents of the claimants also died in the accident in question. 9. As far as compensation is concerned, the claimants, are the unmarried sisters of deceased Somashekhar, who was himself unmarried. Admittedly, the parents of the claimants also died in the accident in question. In other words, the sisters not only lost their brother but also lost their parents in the accident. In my view, having regard to the fact that the claimants being the unmarried sisters, they would be dependent on the income of not only their parents but also their brother. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Tribunal insofar as it relates to the refusal to award any amount towards loss of dependency. 10. The Tribunal has found that there was no evidence to substantiate the assertion that the deceased Somashekhar was earning Rs.6, 000/- p.m. and has proceeded to assess the monthly income as Rs.3, 000/-. 11. In view of the fact that the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority has prepared a chart indicating the monthly income that is to be construed while determining the compensation in Lok Adalath, in my view, it would be prudent to adopt the same. The said chart indicates that in respect of the victims of the accidents of the year 2011, the monthly income to be assessed at Rs.6,000/- by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The monthly income of the deceased would therefore be taken at Rs.6, 000/-. 12. In accordance with the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 5157, future prospects of 40% would have to be added to the monthly income which makes the monthly income to be Rs.8,400/-. 13. The deceased being a bachelor, 50% of the said sum is to be deducted towards his personal expenditure and the monthly income is thus determined at Rs.4,200/-. The deceased was aged 21 years and therefore, the multiplier of 18 is required to be adopted. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for the compensation towards loss of dependency as follows: Rs.4, 200X12x18=Rs.9, 07,200/- 14. In addition, the claimants would also be entitled for the sum of Rs.33,000/- under the conventional heads as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi’s case stated supra and a sum of Rs.88, 000/- towards loss of love and affection (Rs. In addition, the claimants would also be entitled for the sum of Rs.33,000/- under the conventional heads as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi’s case stated supra and a sum of Rs.88, 000/- towards loss of love and affection (Rs. 44,000/- each) in accordance with the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Limited v. Nanu Ram and Others, reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 . 15. Thus, in all, the claimants would be entitled to the following sums: Towards loss of dependency Rs.9,07,200/- Towards conventional heads Rs.33,000/- Towards loss of love and affection Rs.88,000/- Total Rs.10,28,200/- The said compensation shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. 16. The insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.