JUDGMENT : H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD, J. 1. M.F.A.No.6421/2016 has been filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) by the insurance company whereas, M.F.A.Crob.No.8/2017 under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation and also contributory negligence. Since, both, the appeal and the cross-objection arise out of the same accident as well as a common judgment, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Facts leading to filing of these appeal and cross-objection briefly stated are that on 01.12.2014 at about 8.20 p.m. deceased, namely, Pramod Rao was traveling along with his friends in a car bearing registration No.KA-53/P-351 from Koppala to Bangalore. When they reached near Nelahal, Sira Tumkur NH-48 road, a tractor bearing registration No.KA-06/TA-3254- 3255 was taking turn towards service road. At that time, the driver of the car drove the car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tractor. As a result of aforesaid accident, the deceased died at the spot. 3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of accident and was working as an Engineer at Quality Engineering and Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and was earning Rs.32,000/- p.m. and the claimants were dependants of the deceased. The claimants claimed that they have spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards funeral and obsequies of the deceased. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000,00/-. On service of notice, the respondent No.1 owner of the car filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the vehicle had valid permit and was insured with the respondent No.2 and the insurance was in force as on the date of the alleged accident. The respondent No.2 has filed a detailed objection denying the allegations made by the claimants. It was further denied that the car was insured as on the date of the accident. It was pleaded that the driver of the car was not having effective driving licence and there was no valid permit and fitness certificate on the date of the accident. It was further pleaded that compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. It was further denied that the car was insured as on the date of the accident. It was pleaded that the driver of the car was not having effective driving licence and there was no valid permit and fitness certificate on the date of the accident. It was further pleaded that compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. The respondent No.3 did not appear inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-parte. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant No.1 father of the deceased as PW-1 and other two witnesses as PW-2 and PW-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P28. On the other hand, respondent No.2 insurance company examined the officer of the insurance company as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely as Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter-alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver and also the driver of the tractor and fixed negligence of 50% on each of the drivers of the vehicles. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.54,96,726/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the insurance company to deposit 50% of the compensation amount and directed the owner of the tractor to deposit the remaining 50%. Being aggrieved, the insurance company has filed this appeal seeking reduction of compensation and the claimant has filed the cross objection seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that as per the pay-slips produced by the claimants at Exs. P12 and P13, actual monthly income of the claimant is Rs.32,160/- and in a particular month, bonus was added. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.35,142/-. Secondly, the Tribunal has wrongly added 50% to the income of the claimant as future prospects. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) AIR SC 5157, if the deceased was aged below 40 years, 40% of the established income has to be considered for future prospects. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal. 6. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) AIR SC 5157, if the deceased was aged below 40 years, 40% of the established income has to be considered for future prospects. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant cross objector submitted that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the car, but the Tribunal has wrongly given a finding that there is a contributory negligence on the part of driver of the car. Secondly, as per the pay-slip the deceased was earning Rs.35,142/- per month. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal and sought for allowing the cross objection. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. On 01.12.2014 at about 8.20 p.m. deceased was traveling along with his friends in a car bearing registration No.KA-53/Considering-351 from Koppala to Bangalore. The car was being driven by one Harish. When they reached near Nelahal, Sira Tumkur NH-48 road, a tractor bearing registration No.KA-06/TA-3254-3255 was taking turn at Nelahal circle to service road and the accident has occurred, in which the deceased died at the spot. Thereafter one Renukaprasad, who was an eyewitness to the accident has filed a complaint at Tumkur Police station. The police have registered FIR in Crime No.0160/2014 as per Ex. P1. It is very clear that Renukaprasad has given a complaint stating that the car was going towards Tumakur with a high speed and at that time the driver of the tractor, without following any traffic rules has taken a turn at Nelahal circle and has caused the accident. We have also perused the charge sheet at Ex.P2, mahazar at Ex.P3 and the sketch at Ex.P4. It is very clear from the above documents that the accident has occurred in the middle of the road due to the negligence of drivers of both the vehicle. As per the charge sheet accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer and also the driver of the car. Even as per the evidence of PW1, the accident has occurred in the middle of the road. As per the charge sheet accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer and also the driver of the car. Even as per the evidence of PW1, the accident has occurred in the middle of the road. Admittedly, the driver of the tractor and trailer was not having a valid driving licence. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that there is 50% contributory negligence of the driver of the car and 50% on the owner of the tractor and trailer. 8. Even though the claimants have claimed that deceased was earning Rs.35,142/ per month, as per pay slips at Exs.P12 and P13, actual salary of the deceased was Rs.32,160/- and bonus was given in a particular month. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.35,142/-. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in PRANAY SETHI (supra), 40% has to be added to the income of the deceased. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.45,024/-. Out of which, 50% of the amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses as deceased was a bachelor and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.22,512/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 28 years at the time of accident, multiplier of 17 has to be adopted. The claimants are entitled to Rs.45,92,448/- on account of loss of dependency. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, (2018) ACJ 2782, the claimants who are parents of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each as loss of filial consortium and loss of love and affection. Thus, the total amount of compensation under this head is assessed at Rs.80,000/-. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.30,000/- each on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.47,32,448/-. The total compensation of Rs.54,96,726/- granted by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.47,32,448/- out of which 50% shall be deposited by the insurance company and another 50% shall be deposited by the owner of the tractor. Needless to state that the aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment is made. Needless to state that the aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment is made. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. 9. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the tribunal. 10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is allowed in part. The cross objection filed by the claimants is dismissed.