JUDGMENT M.Nagaprasanna, J. - This appeal and the cross objection, though listed for admission, are taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The appealin MFA.No.23150/2013 is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) by the Insurance Company and the cross objection in MFA.CROB.No.100038/2015 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 08.03.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T. at Gangavathi, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in M.V.C.No.300/2011. 3. Parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal. 4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 30.10.2008 the deceased along with K.Rambabu was returning from Sriramanagar on a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.37/L-4624 and when the said motorcycle came on Sndhanoor- Gangavathi road near Gundur village, respondent No.1 who was riding the motorcycle, rode it in a rash and negligent manner due to which, the vehicle skid and the deceased and respondent No.1 fell down. On account of the impact of the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. 5. The claimants being legal representatives of the deceased filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunalin MVC.No.300/2011 on the ground that the deceased was working as clerk (gumasta) and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and was the sole breadwinner of the family and due to the death of the deceased the family is put to great hardship and claimed compensation of Rs.18,35,000/- along with interest on account of death of the deceased. 6. On issuance of notice, the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company appeared and disputed the facts that the deceased died due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motorcycle-respondent No.1. It was also contended that the accident had occurred on account of negligence on the part of the deceased himsel f. The age, income and avocation of the deceased were all denied by the Insurance Company. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. 8. The 1st claimant, in order to prove the case, examined herselfas PW.1 and marked about 11 documents as Exs.P1 to Ex.P.11. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. 8. The 1st claimant, in order to prove the case, examined herselfas PW.1 and marked about 11 documents as Exs.P1 to Ex.P.11. On the other hand the respondent-Insurance Company examined one witness as R.W.! and marked two documents as Ex.R.1 & R.2, on its behal f. 9. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle namely the 1st respondent who also died in the accident and further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,75,800/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on account of the death of the deceased. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, MFA No.23150/2013 is filed by the respondent- Insurance Company questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunalin favour of the claimants and MFA.CROB.No.100038/2015 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 11. Heard learned counsel Sri M.Amaregouda appearing for claimants-cross objectors and learned counsel Sri A.G.Jadhav appearing for appellant-Insurance Company. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company would contend that that the complaint is lodged after a delay of 14 days of the accident. It is contended that in the complaint the vehicle number is KA.37-L-4264 and when the statement was given by the complainant on 07.04.2009, the vehicle number is changed to K.A.37/L.4246. Hence, he would submit that the vehicle has been falsely implicated in the entire incident. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, he would contend that the Tribunal has awarded a compensation that is a just, fair and proper and does not require any interference by this Court. 13. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 14. Insofar as MFA No.23150/2013 fled by the Insurance Company, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the accident had occurred on 30.10.2008 and the complaint was lodged after 14 days, is contrary to the facts. 13. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 14. Insofar as MFA No.23150/2013 fled by the Insurance Company, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the accident had occurred on 30.10.2008 and the complaint was lodged after 14 days, is contrary to the facts. Ex.P.1 is the complaint given to the jurisdictional police, which shows the date as 31.10.2008 and the accident had occurred on 30.10.2008 complaint was given on the very next day and the contention with regard to the numbers in the number plate varying from the complaint and the statement made by the complainant on 07.04.2009 is concerned, a bare perusal at Exs.P.1 and P.2, no doubt, the numbers mentioned are at slight variance but the facts remains that, the vehicle belonged to the first respondent. 15. The 1st respondent also died in the accident. The legal representatives of the 1s t respondent filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act in MVC.No.25/2010 which are produced at Exs.P.10 and P.11 in the instant case. In terms of the afore stated exhibits, the Tribunal had restricted the award of compensation for the rider of the motorcycle to its claimants at Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 163- A of the Act. The vehicle is the same, number of the vehicle that appears in MVC.No.25/2010 in which the Insurance Company has accepted the liability and satisfied the compensation is the same that is involved in the instant case. Thus, it would not lie with the Insurance Company to contend in this case that, there was change in the number after having satisfied the compensation in the claim petition filed by the legal representatives of deceased in proceeding arising out of Section 163-A of the Act involving the very same vehicle. 16. The tribunal at paragraph No.19 has recorded that Exs.P.10 and P.11 are the judgment and award in MVC.No.25/2010 wherein the insurance company has accepted the liability and satisfied the compensation. Thus the contention of the insurance company with regard to the change in numbers of the vehicle is unfounded and the same is rejected. 17. Insofar as MFA.CROB.No.100038/2015 filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation is concerned, admittedly the claimants have not produced any evidence to show the income of the deceased as on the date of the accident. Thus the contention of the insurance company with regard to the change in numbers of the vehicle is unfounded and the same is rejected. 17. Insofar as MFA.CROB.No.100038/2015 filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation is concerned, admittedly the claimants have not produced any evidence to show the income of the deceased as on the date of the accident. In the circumstances, the notionalincome as provided under the Guidelines/Chart issued by the Karnataka High Court Legal Services Committee is required to be taken into consideration. 18. The accident is of the year 2008 and in terms of the Chart, the notionalincome is Rs.4,250/-. To the aforesaid amount, 40% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Nationalinsurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi And Others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 . Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.5,950/-. Out of which, I deem it appropriate to deduct 1/4th towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.4,462.50/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 25 years at the time ofaccident, multiplier of "18" has to be adopted. Hence, claimants are entitled to Rs.9,63,900/- (Rs.4,462.50 X 12 X 18) on account of loss of dependency. 19. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Magma Generalinsurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram, (2018) ACJ 2782 , which is again reiterated and followed by a Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Satinder Kaur and others,2020 SCCOnline(SC) 410 , the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each as loss of spousal consortium, loss of filial consortium and loss of parental consortium. Thus, the total amount of compensation under this head is assessed at Rs.1,60,000/-. 20. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.11,53,900/- as against Rs.6,75,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the total amount of compensation under this head is assessed at Rs.1,60,000/-. 20. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.11,53,900/- as against Rs.6,75,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. Needless to state that the aforesaid enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till payment is made except for the period of 180 days delay in filing the cross objection in terms of the order of this Court dated 14.12.2017. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunalis modified. 21. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company in MFA.No.23150/2013 is dismissed and the MFA.CROB.No.100038/2015 filed by the claimants is allowed in part. The amount in deposit before this Court, ifany, shall be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.