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 25.08.2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 30.05.2013, Noel @ Novel Adolfus D'Souza was proceeding in the car bearing registration No.KA-19-Z-1646 from Chokkabettu towards Katipalla. When the car reached in front of shop of Anthony at Krishnapura, Katipalla of Mangaluru Taluk at about 4.45 p.m. at that time a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA-19-D-3964 being driven at a higher speed, in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, came from opposite side i.e., on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the car of the deceased. Due to which, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries, because of which, he died. 3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 46 years at the time of accident and was running his own workshop under the name and style of 'Car Track' and earning net profit of Rs.5,00,000/- per annum. The claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- along with interest. 4. On service of notice, the Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement and sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. 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 P24. The Insurance Company did not examine any witnesses but got marked the insurance policy which is marked as Ex.R1. 6. The Claims Tribunal by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA-19-D-3964 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.14,73,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. 7. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.14,73,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was earning a net profit of Rs.5,00,000/- per annum. He was a income tax assessee and in spite of producing the necessary tax returns, the trial Court ignoring the same and held his income at Rs.12,000/- per month, which is erroneous. He further contended that there being four dependents, the trial Court ought to have considered 1/4th income as personal expenditure, instead, it erred in considering 1/3rd towards his personal expenditure. He further contended that the compensation awarded under the 'Conventional Head' are also not adequate. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the judgment passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The claimants have produced the income tax returns filed by the deceased for the financial year 2011-12 and 2012-13 along with the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant. The said Chartered Accountant has been examined as PW.2. As per the said certificates produced at Exs.P18 and P20, net income of the deceased for the financial year 2011-12 is stated to be Rs.1,74,500/- and for the financial year 2012-13, it is stated to be Rs.1,89,300/-. The said documents have not been contrvened by the Insurance Company. If we take the mean average of the two year, the net profit would be Rs.1,81,900/- per annum, it would be Rs.15,158/- per month. We deem it appropriate to taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month and not Rs.12,000/- as held that by the trial Court. 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. 21,000/-. Out of which, we deem it appropriate to deduct 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses as there are four dependents and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS, (2017) AIR SC 5157 . Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs. 21,000/-. Out of which, we deem it appropriate to deduct 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses as there are four dependents and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs. 15,750/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 46 years at the time of accident, multiplier 13' has to be adopted. Thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 24,57,000/- 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. 26,47,000/-. The trial Court has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation granted, we deem it appropriate to award interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment is made on the total compensation of Rs.26,47,000/-. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.