JUDGMENT : 1. The Miscellaneous First Appeal No.3043/2010 is filed by the claimants and Miscellaneous First Appeal No.2417/2010 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 13.01.2010 passed in M.V.C.No.3427/2008 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes at Bengaluru (‘the Tribunal’ for short) questioning the quantum of compensation and also the contributory negligence, respectively. 2. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal in order to avoid the confusion and for the convenience of the Court. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 02.03.2008 at about 6:45 p.m, when the deceased Ashwatha @ Ashwath Kumar after visiting his parents was going towards Bengaluru as pillion rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-02-X-6772 ridden by one Gangaiah. When they reached near Kallugopanaalli, Bidadi Taluk, Mysuru-Bengaluru road, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-12-1723, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in high speed and dashed against the motorcycle. Due to the impact, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Primary Health Centre, Bidadi, but he was succumbed to the injuries. 4. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was doing agriculture, dairy, growing mulberry and also running poultry farm, in all, he was earning Rs.12,000/-per month. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the family had lost the bread earning member of the family. 5. In pursuance of the claim petition, notices were issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have represented through their Counsel. Respondent No.1-insured has admitted the accident and denied the rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company has also denied the rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry and contended that the liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. 6. The claimants in order to substantiate their claim, examined claimant No.1 as PW.1-Shivarathnamma, who is the mother of the deceased and also examined other three witnesses as PWs.2 to 4 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P28. The respondents did not lead any evidence before the Tribunal. 7. 6. The claimants in order to substantiate their claim, examined claimant No.1 as PW.1-Shivarathnamma, who is the mother of the deceased and also examined other three witnesses as PWs.2 to 4 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P28. The respondents did not lead any evidence before the Tribunal. 7. The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence and on appreciation of the material available on record, partly allowed the claim petition granting the compensation of Rs.5,10,000/-with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization of entire amount. 8. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation in MFA No.3043/2010, the appellants/claimants have contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. PW.3 deposed that he was earning Rs.4,800/-per month and PW.4 also deposed that he was earning through poultry farm Rs.3,000/-. The Tribunal did not consider the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 and committed an error in taking the income of Rs.5,000/-per month. The Tribunal also committed an error in not considering the transport expenditure of Rs.10,000/-and spending Rs.50,000/-for performing funeral, obsequies and on the other heads also, the compensation awarded is very meager. 9. The appellant-Insurance Company in MFA No.2417/2010, contended that the Tribunal has not considered the contributory negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle and also committed an error in applying the multiplier 16 instead of 13. The Tribunal also committed an error in taking the income of Rs.5,000/-in the absence of documentary proof. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court. 10. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for all the parties in both the appeals and on perusal of the records, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the monthly income of Rs.10,000/-of the deceased in the absence of documentary proof and it requires an interference of this Court? (ii) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the just and reasonable compensation? (iii) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not taking the contributory negligence? (iv) What order? Point Nos.(i) to (iii): 11. (ii) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the just and reasonable compensation? (iii) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not taking the contributory negligence? (iv) What order? Point Nos.(i) to (iii): 11. Having heard the respective counsel of both the appeals and also on perusal of the records, no doubt, it is the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/-per month and also examined other witnesses with regard to the income is concerned and no documentary proof is placed with regard to the income of the deceased except the oral evidence of PWs.3 and 4. The respondents also not adduced any evidence to prove the contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. However, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. It has to be noted that in the absence of documentary proof, the Court has to take the notional income and in the case on hand, I have already pointed out that there is no documentary proof with regard to the income of the deceased and only Exs.P10 to 21 – record of rights – 12 in number are produced before the Court and also produced the certificate, which is marked as Ex.P22. The author of the document-Ex.P22 has not been examined. Hence, the certificate-Ex.P22 cannot be taken into account for considering the income of the deceased. However, taking into note of the notional income payable in the year 2008 is Rs.4,500/-per month. The Tribunal has not committed an error in taking the income of Rs.5,000/-. 12. In the cross-examination of PW.1, the respondents have not disputed the record of rights, which are marked as Exs.P10 to P21; instead in the cross-examination, a suggestion was made that even after the death of the deceased Ashwatha, they were doing the agricultural work and continuing the poultry farm. Having considered the material on record, taking the income little bit higher side i.e., Rs.500/-cannot be a ground to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal in taking the income of Rs.5,000/-. 13. In order to prove the contributory negligence as contended by the Insurance Company no witnesses have been examined by the Insurance Company. Hence, the contention of the Insurance Company is that there was a contributory negligence on the rider of the motorcycle, cannot be accepted. 14. 13. In order to prove the contributory negligence as contended by the Insurance Company no witnesses have been examined by the Insurance Company. Hence, the contention of the Insurance Company is that there was a contributory negligence on the rider of the motorcycle, cannot be accepted. 14. On perusal of the impugned Judgment and Award of the Tribunal, it reveals that the Tribunal has not considered the ‘future prospects’. As the deceased was aged about 31 years, the relevant multiplier would be 16. Hence, 40% has to be added as ‘future prospects’ if the income is taken as Rs.5,000/-per month. Hence, the ‘loss of dependency’ is calculated as under: Monthly income Rs.5,000/- Add: 40% towards Rs.2,000/- Future prospects Rs.7,000/- Less: ½ towards Rs.3,500/- Personal expenses Rs.3,500/- Loss of dependency (Rs.3500/-x 12 x 16) Rs.6,72,000/- 15. In view of the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS, since the deceased is a bachelor, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/-under the ‘conventional heads’. 16. In the circumstances, the appellants/claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.7,02,000/-as against Rs.5,10,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, I answer point Nos.(i) to (iii) accordingly. 17. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal filed by the claimants in MFA No.3043/2010 is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 13.01.2010 passed in M.V.C.No.3427/2008, is modified by granting a compensation of Rs.7,02,000/- as against Rs.5,10,000/-with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization of entire amount. (iii) The appeal filed by the Insurance Company in MFA No.2417/2010 is dismissed. (iv) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation within eight weeks from today. (v) The amount, if any in deposit shall be transferred to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. (vi) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.