JUDGMENT E S Indiresh, J. - This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimants against the Judgment and award dated 20th January, 2014 passed in MVC No.1346 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') wherein, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.37,65,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 2. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, claimants have preferred this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred as per their status before the Triubnal. 4. Facts of the case, in nutshell are that, on 30th June, 2013 at about 6.30 pm, deceased K.R. Vishwanath-husband of the claimant No.1, father of claimant No.2 and son of claimants No.3 and 4, while collecting some articles from the Driver of bus bearing registration No.KA-20-A-3598, driver of another bus belonging to Sahyadri Travels bearing registration No.KA-14- A-1832 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against said K.R. Vishwanath, and as a result of the same, he sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries in the hospital. On account of the said accident, the claimants have lost their breadearner and accordingly, filed MVC No.1346 of 2013 on the file of the Tribunal against the respondents herein and sought for compensation of Rs.64,44,000/-. 5. In response to service of notice, respondent No.2 has appeared before the Tribunal and filed detailed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. However, respondent No.2 contended that its liability is subject to validity of the driving licence of the driver of offending bus as well as the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. Respondent No.1 (owner of the offending vehicle) was placed ex-parte before the Tribunal. Based on the above pleadings, Tribunal has framed following issues: 1. Whether the petitioners prove that K R Vishwanath died in a motor vehicle accident that was taken place on 30.06.2013 at about 6.30 pm at Theerthahalli bus stand due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Regn No.KA 14 A 1832 driven by its driver when the deceased was enquiring with a driver of Bus bearing No.KA 20 A 3598? 2. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, for what amount and from whom? 3. What order or award? 6. In order to prove their case, of claimant No.1 herself was examined as PW1 and another independent witness has been examined as PW2 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P11. Respondents have not placed any oral evidence, so also not produced any documentary evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, by its judgment and award dated 20th January, 2014 allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.37,65,400/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The Tribunal further directed that respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and the respondent No.2-Insurance Company shall indemnify respondent No.1 in payment of compensation to the claimants. Being not satisfied with the compensation amount, the appellant-claimants have preferred the instant appeal. 7. We have heard Shri Chethan B., learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri P.B. Raju, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 8. Shri Chethan B., learned counsel for appellantclaimants submitted that the award of Rs.37,65,400/- is on the lower side and requires enhancement in this appeal. He submitted that the Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased at Rs.19,351/- per month and thereby awarded the compensation of Rs.37,15,392/- towards loss of dependency which is inadequate and requires to be enhanced. 9. Per contra, Shri P.B. Raju, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-Insurance Company sought to justify the judgment and award made by the Tribunal and he further submitted that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and the same do not require any enhancement in this appeal and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 10. We have perused the entire records pertaining to MVC No.1346 of 2013 and also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the points for determination in this appeal are: (i) Whether the claimant-appellants have made out case for enhancement of compensation in this appeal? (ii) Whether the compensation of Rs.37,65,400/- awarded by the Tribunal requires interference in this appeal? 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the points for determination in this appeal are: (i) Whether the claimant-appellants have made out case for enhancement of compensation in this appeal? (ii) Whether the compensation of Rs.37,65,400/- awarded by the Tribunal requires interference in this appeal? 11. We have carefully considered the material on record wherein the Tribunal, after making a thorough examination of the documents, viz. Exhibit P1-First Information Report; Exhibit P3-Inquest report; Exhibit P4-postmortem report; Exhibit P5- spot mahazar; Exhibit P6-IMV report; Exhibit P7-witness statement, Exhibit P8-sketch, Exhibit P9-charge sheet, had come to the conclusion that claimants have proved the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus bearing registration No.KA-14-A-1832 by its driver and accordingly, answered issue No.1 in the affirmative in favour of the claimants. Insofar as the enhancement of compensation as urged by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimants is concerned, perusal of Exhibit P10 disclose that the deceased was working as Range Forest Officer in Forest Department at the time of death and as per the salary certificate, the salary of the deceased was Rs.19,551/- per month and after deducting the profession Tax of Rs.200/- per month, the deceased was getting salary of Rs.19,351/- per month. It is also not in dispute that the age of the deceased, at the time of the death, was 34 years and the deceased was having a permanent job and therefore, in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VARMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, (2009) ACJ 1298 , 50% of the income has to be added towards future prospects. Then the total annual income comes to Rs.2,32,212/-. Out of the said income, one third has to be deducted towards the personal expenses as there are three dependents. Since the age of the deceased was 34 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 16, as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VARMA (supra). Then the loss of dependency comes to Rs.37,15,392/- (Rs.3,48,318/- x 16 x 2/3). Therefore, the claimants No.1, 2 and 4 are entitled for compensation of Rs.37,15,392/- towards loss of dependency. Then the loss of dependency comes to Rs.37,15,392/- (Rs.3,48,318/- x 16 x 2/3). Therefore, the claimants No.1, 2 and 4 are entitled for compensation of Rs.37,15,392/- towards loss of dependency. Hence, we do not find any error in the income taken by the Tribunal at Rs.19351/- per month and accordingly, awarding compensation of Rs.37,15,392/- under the head loss of dependency remains undisturbed. 11. As regards awarding compensation under conventional heads is concerned, in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS, (2017) ACJ 2700 the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.70,000/- all put together under conventional heads and as such, the same is awarded. Accordingly, the claimant-appellants are entitled for a total Rs.37,85,392/- rounded off to Rs.37,85,400/- as against Rs.37,65,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs.37,85,400/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 12. It is forthcoming from the records that claimant No.3- father of the deceased, was working in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, which is a Public Sector Undertaking and as such, the claimant No.3 is having an independent source of income and he is not depending upon the income of the deceased. 13. In view of the foregoing reasons, points for consideration is answered in favour of the claimant-appellants and thereby the appellants are entitled for additional sum of Rs.20,000/- excluding the award of Rs.37,65,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the following: O R D E R (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 20th January, 2014 passed in MVC No.1346 of 2013 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan is modified and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.37,85,400/- as against Rs.37,65,400/-. The appellant-claimants are entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization; (iii) Vide order dated 01st July, 2019, interest for the delayed period of 333 days in filing is denied. Accordingly, the enhanced amount shall not carry interest for the delayed period; (iv) Registry to draw decree accordingly.