JUDGMENT P.S.Dinesh Kumar, J. - These two appeals are filed by the Insurer and the claimants respectively challenging the judgment and award dated 22.06.2018 in MVC No.10/2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.11 and II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ballari, sitting at Siruguppa. 2. M.F.A.No.104205/2018 is filed by the Insurer seeking reduction in compensation and M.F.A.No.104606/2019 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement. 3. We have heard Shri S.K.Kayakamath, learned advocate for insurer and Shri Manjunath G.Patil, learned advocate for claimants. 4. Brief facts of the case are, on 12.05.2013, Shri Venkatesh, son of 1st and 2nd claimants was travelling in a maxi cab vehicle bearing registration No.KA-13/B-885 from E.J.Basapur to Bengaluru. The driver of the vehicle lost control and the vehicle over turned near Kengal cross within the jurisdiction of Sindhnur Rural Police Station. Venkatesh sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to Government Hospital at Siraguppa but he succumbed to the injuries at about 10.10 p.m. on the same day. His dependants have filed the instant claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.33.75 lakhs, contending inter alia that Venkatesh was hale and healthy, working as Design Engineer and earning Rs.34,326/- per month. Two witnesses have been examined on behalf of claimants as PWs-1 and 2 and Exs.P.1 to 14 have been marked. No evidence was let in on behalf of the respondents. Tribunal, on consideration of material on record has awarded a sum of Rs38,55,000/-. Hence, these appeals. 5. Shri Kayakamath, learned advocate for Insurer submitted that Tribunal has erred in considering the salary of deceased as Rs.35,000/- though the salary certificate Ex.P.11 shows that deceased was getting gross salary of Rs.34,654/-. Hence, he seeks for reduction of compensation. 6. Shri Manjunath G. Patil, learned advocate for claimants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in deducting 50% towards personal expenditure, though deceased had four dependants. Further, Tribunal has not considered the future prospects which the deceased would have earned. The Tribunal has not granted adequate compensation under conventional heads also. With these submissions, he prayed for enhancement of compensation. 7. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 8. Undisputed facts of the case are, Venkatesh son of claimants 1 and 2 has died in the road traffic accident involving the vehicle belonging to Shri Diwakar D.J, which has been insured by M/s. Cholamandalam M S Generalinsurance Company. 9. 7. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 8. Undisputed facts of the case are, Venkatesh son of claimants 1 and 2 has died in the road traffic accident involving the vehicle belonging to Shri Diwakar D.J, which has been insured by M/s. Cholamandalam M S Generalinsurance Company. 9. It is the case of the claimants that Venkatesh was working as Design Engineer. Ex.P.11 is the certificate issued by the Company showing the total salary of the deceased- Venkatesh as Rs.34,321/-. Shri Kayakamath is right in his submission that the Tribunal has not deducted the tax components from the salary. For the financial year 2013-14, income upto Rs.2,00,00/- was exempted from income tax. A sum of Rs.200/- will have to be deducted towards professional tax from the salary of the deceased. The annualincome of the deceased after deduction of the professional tax would be Rs.34,121/- X 12 = Rs.4,09,452/-. An amount of Rs.2,00,00/- is not taxable. If the said amount is deducted, the taxable income works * Rs.20,945/- out to Rs.4,09,452/- - Rs.2,00,000/- = Rs.2,09,452/-. On this, 10% will have to be deducted towards income tax, Rs.2,09,452/- - Rs.2,945/- = Rs.1,88,507/-. Thus, the net yearly salary would work out to Rs.2,00,000/- + Rs.1,88,507/- = Rs.3,88,507/-. 40% of his earning will have to be added towards future prospects. That works out to Rs.3,88,507/- + Rs.1,55,403/- = Rs.5,43,910/-. Since, he was a bachelor, 50% of his earning will have to be deducted towards personal expenditure, which works out to Rs.5,43,910/- - 50% = Rs.2,71,955/- = Rs.2,71,955. Venkatesh was aged 25 years. Therefore, the applicable multiplier is 18. 10. Hence, the totalincome for the purpose of calculation of loss of dependency works out to Rs.2,71,955/- X 18 = Rs.48,95,190/-. Thus, totalloss of dependency works out to Rs.48,95,190/-. * Corrected, vide Court order dated 30/09/2020. Sd/- (PSDJ) 11. Claimants No.1 and 2 are parents of Venkatesh. Therefore, they will be entitled for filial consortium. Claimants No.3 and 4 are brothers. They are aged 23 and 21 years. No materialis placed before the Tribunal to show that they were dependent on Venkatesh. In addition, claimants would be entitled for Rs.30,000/- towards other conventional heads. 12. The compensation is accordingly recomputed as follows: Sl. No. Heads Amount 1. Loss of dependency (Rs.3,88,507/-+40%= Rs.5,43,910/- -50%= Rs.2,71,955/- x18.) Rs.48,95,190/- 2. Loss of filial consortium (to claimants 1 and 2) Rs. 80,000/- 3. In addition, claimants would be entitled for Rs.30,000/- towards other conventional heads. 12. The compensation is accordingly recomputed as follows: Sl. No. Heads Amount 1. Loss of dependency (Rs.3,88,507/-+40%= Rs.5,43,910/- -50%= Rs.2,71,955/- x18.) Rs.48,95,190/- 2. Loss of filial consortium (to claimants 1 and 2) Rs. 80,000/- 3. Conventional heads Rs 30,000/- Total Rs.50,05,190/- Less: compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.38,55,000/- Net enhancement Rs.11,50,190/- 13. Hence, the following: ORDER i ) M.F.A.No.104606/2019 filed by the claimants is allowed, ii) Claimants are held entitled for enhanced compensation of 11,50,190/- payable with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for disbursement in accordance with law. iii ) M.F.A.No.104205/2018 filed by the Insurer is dismissed. No costs.