JUDGMENT M.I.Arun, J. - This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.09.2017 passed by XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and the MACT, (SCCH-23) at Bengaluru. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 13.11.2016 at about 4.50 p.m., on Hebbala flyover, Bellary road, Bengaluru, the driver of K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No.KA- 57-F-1132 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-03-HH-4659 which was infront of the bus and consequently, the rider of the motor cycle Asad Ali fell down and sustained multiple injuries, which resulted in his death. 3. The claimants being legal heirs and dependents of the deceased, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act. On the ground that the deceased was aged about 38 years at the time of accident and he was working as a head cook in Lazeez Restaurant, Bengaluru and was earning about Rs.1,200/- per day, the claimants claimed compensation to a tune of Rs.50,00,000/- along with interest. 4. On service of notice, the respondent appeared through its counsel and filed its objections and contended that the accident happened purely due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased. The respondent denied the manner of accident, age of the deceased, his earnings and dependency of the claimants and requested for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. 6. The claimants in order to prove their case, examined claimant No.1 as PW.1 and another witness as PW.2 and got marked exhibits P1 to P12. The respondent examined a witness as RW.1. 7. The Claims Tribunal by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No.KA-57-F-1132 by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to it. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.12,30,000/- with costs and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. 8. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.12,30,000/- with costs and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal erred in considering the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month. Admittedly, he was working as a Head Cook at Restaurant and he was earning a sum of Rs.1,200/- per day and the trial Court ignored Ex.P9-the salary certificate issued by the employer. He also contended that future prospects also have not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while granting compensation. For the said reason, the claimants sought enhancement of compensation. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the deceased was working as a Head Cook in Lazeez Restaurant. However, the deposition of PW.2 who owns the restaurant reveals that he is trying to exaggerate the earnings of the deceased person. As per his crossexamination, 7 persons are working in his hotel. His yearly turn over is Rs.7,00,000/-. It would be impossible for him to pay a sum of Rs.36,000/- per month for a single employee. No supporting documents like income tax returns and the like have been produced to prove the claim. However, notional income as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, when there is no proof of income for the year 2006 is Rs.9,500/- per month. Admittedly, the deceased was working as a Head Cook, which is a skilled job and would be safe to take his income as Rs.11,000/- per month instead of Rs.8,000/- per month as taken by the Tribunal. 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 ' NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS, (2017) AIR SC 5157 . Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs. 15,400/-. 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 ' NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS, (2017) AIR SC 5157 . Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs. 15,400/-. Out of which, we deem it appropriate to deduct 1/4th of the notional income towards personal expenses as there are four dependents and therefore, the monthly income comes to Rs. 11,550/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 38 years at the time of accident, multiplier 15' has to be adopted. Thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 20,79,000/- on account of 'loss of dependency'. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in ' MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NANU RAM, (2018) ACJ 2782 , the claimants are entitled to Rs. 40,000/- each as 'loss of consortium and loss of love and affection'. Thus, the total amount of compensation under this head is assessed at Rs. 1,60,000/-. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 30,000/- on account of 'loss of estate and funeral expenses'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 22,69,000/-. Needless to state that the aforementioned amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment is made. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.