JUDGMENT Suraj Govindaraj, J. - The appellant -Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 20.10.2016, passed in MVC No.280/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT, Hungund (for short "the tribunal") insofar as the liability imposed on the Insurance Company. 2. The nature and occurrence of the accident is not in dispute. Hence, the facts leading up to the accident and thereafter are therefore not required to be adverted to. 3. Shri Gangadhar S.Hosamani, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, would submit that though the driver of the insured vehicle did not have a valid driving licence for driving such a vehicle, the tribunal has imposed the liability on the Insurance Company, which is what is under challenge. He submits that the driver of the said vehicle, namely the lorry bearing No.AP-16/TX-7729 which is in fact a petrol tanker is a heavy goods vehicle, the driver driving the said vehicle had a licence for driving only a light motor vehicle. Hence, there is a fundamental breach of the policy by the insured, allowing a person not authorized to drive the vehicle, to drive such a vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable and he submits that this finding is to be set aside. 4. Though the insured has been served is not represented in the present matter. 5. The tribunal at paragraph No.20 of the judgment had committed an error inasmuch as coming to the conclusion that the driving licence for light motor vehicle was sufficient licence for driving a heavy goods vehicle, which is not correct. The subsequent obtaining of a licence for driving heavy goods vehicle would not enure to the benefit of the owner inasmuch as the same would have enured the benefit only if there was an earlier licence, which had not been renewed, but was subsequently renewed. That principle would not apply in the present case, where there is no licence at all to drive a heavy goods vehicle as on the date of accident. In view of the same, the imposition of the liability by the tribunal on the Insurance Company is set aside. However, considering that the M.V. Act is a beneficial legislation and third parties are required to be protected and compensated even though there may be a breach of contract between the insured and the insurer. In view of the same, the imposition of the liability by the tribunal on the Insurance Company is set aside. However, considering that the M.V. Act is a beneficial legislation and third parties are required to be protected and compensated even though there may be a breach of contract between the insured and the insurer. Applying the principles laid down by the full bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bijapur v. Yallavva W/o. Yamanappa Dharanakeri and another,2020 2 AKR 484 , the appellant is directed to make payment of the compensation amount and recover the same from the insured - owner of the vehicle in accordance with law, in the same proceedings. 6. Shri S.S. Beturmath on behalf of Shri K.L. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that though the claimant has not filed an appeal, the compensation which has been awarded is very meagre and this Court exercising its right in an appeal by the Insurance company, considering that the M.V. Act is a beneficial legislation and taking into consideration the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Akkayyamma and others, (2009) ILR(Kar) 24 , could always enhance the compensation to award just and equitable compensation, if the compensation awarded is unjust. 7. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9,26,000/- on the following heads: Heads of account Amount 1. Loss of dependency 8,16,000/- 2. Conveyance 5,000/- 3. Funeral expense 25,000/- 4. Loss of consortium 50,000/- 5. Loss of estate 10,000/- 6. Loss of love & affection 20,000/- TOTAL 9,26,000/- 8. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY: A perusal of all the documents indicates that the deceased was aged about 29 years when he expired on account of a road traffic accident. The legal representatives of the deceased not having produced any documents to establish the earnings of the deceased, the Tribunal took into account an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month as being the income of the deceased. The appellants have contended that the said income is inadequate and not in accordance with the notional income, which has been fixed for the purpose of the conduct of Lok-adalath. As per the said chart, the notional income of the deceased would be Rs.5,500/-. The appellants have contended that the said income is inadequate and not in accordance with the notional income, which has been fixed for the purpose of the conduct of Lok-adalath. As per the said chart, the notional income of the deceased would be Rs.5,500/-. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have considered the said amount, which not having been considered, requires correction at the hands of this Court. In view of the above submission and having perused the chart adopted for the purpose of Lok- Adalath, the notional income as on the year of death of the deceased, in my considered view would have to be taken into consideration and as such, a sum of Rs.5,500/- is taken as the income of the deceased. 9. The deceased being aged 28 years as on the date of the death, the future prospects @ 40% is required to be added to the income of the deceased instead of 50% added by the tribunal. In terms of ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi,2017 16 SCC 618 , the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.5,500/- x 12 + 40% = Rs.92,400/-. 10. The deceased had three number of dependants. Hence, an amount equivalent to 1/3rd is required to be deducted from the said annual income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased as per the ruling in case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporations case, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Hence, the amount to be ducted on account of personal expenses would be Rs.92,400/- x 1/3 = Rs.30,800/-. The annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculation of loss of dependency would be Rs.92,400/- - Rs.30,800/- = Rs.61,600/-. 11. The deceased being aged about 29 years at the time of death, the appropriate multiplier would be 17. Hence, loss of dependency would be Rs.61,600/- x 17 = Rs.10,47,200/-. Hence, the amount awarded by the Tribunal being Rs.8,16,00/- is enhanced by Rs.2,31,200/-. 12. FUNERAL EXPENSES: The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards "funeral expenses". In terms of the decision in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the same is required to be reduced to Rs.15,000/-. 13. Hence, loss of dependency would be Rs.61,600/- x 17 = Rs.10,47,200/-. Hence, the amount awarded by the Tribunal being Rs.8,16,00/- is enhanced by Rs.2,31,200/-. 12. FUNERAL EXPENSES: The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards "funeral expenses". In terms of the decision in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the same is required to be reduced to Rs.15,000/-. 13. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM AND LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION: The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards "loss of consortium" to respondent No.1 and Rs.20,000/- towards "loss of love and affection to respondent No.3. In terms of the decision in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the wife is entitled to a compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards "loss of consortium" and the mother would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards "loss of love and affection" instead of what has been awarded by the tribunal. 14. LOSS OF ESTATE: The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards "loss of estate. In terms of the decision in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the same is required to be enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. 15. The awardal of a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards "Conveyance" is set aside. 16. Thus, in view of the above, the comparative table of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and by this Court is under: Heads of account Amount awarded by the tribunal Amount awarded by this Court Difference 1. Loss of dependency 8,16,000/- 10,47,200/- 2,31,200/- 2. Conveyance 5,000/- 0 -5,000/- 3. Funeral expense 25,000/- 15,000/- (10,000/-) 4. Loss of consortium 50,000/- 40,000/- (10,000/-) 5. Loss of estate 10,000/- 15,000/- 5,000/- 6. Loss of love & affection 20,000/- 40,000/- 20,000/- TOTAL 9,26,000/- 11,57,200/- 2,31,200/- 17. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The judgment and award dated 20.10.2016, passed in MVC No.280/2014 by the tribunal is hereby modified. The appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.2,31,200/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. (iii) The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the tribunal for disbursement.