JUDGMENT M.I.Arun, J. - Accepting the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1/2017 in MFA Crob. No.100132/2017, the delay of 395 days in filing the cross-objection is condoned. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2017 in MFA Crob No.100132/2017 is allowed. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 21.04.2016, passed in MVC No.1383/2015 by the VI-Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Member Addl. MACT, Belagavi (for short "the Tribunal"), the second respondent has preferred MFA No.102169/2016 and the claimants therein have preferred MFA Crob. No.100132/2017. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 4. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 5. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.05.2015 at about 11:30 a.m. on Hukkeri Ghataprabha Raod, the driver of the offending car bearing registration No.MH-09/DA-6248 owned by the first respondent and insured by second respondent drove it in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-06/J-4654. It resulted in grievous injuries to the rider of the bike, Mr.Somalingappa, who ultimately succumbed to the injuries on 02.06.2015. Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased, claimant No.3 is the wife of the deceased and claimant Nos.4 and 5 are the children of the deceased. 6. Thereupon, the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on the ground that the deceased as on the date of the accident was aged about 42 years and was working as driver in the Indian Army. He was earning a monthly income of Rs.40,000/-. It was pleaded that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending car by its driver. Accordingly, the claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.78,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. 7. In response to the service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and also sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 8. Based on the averments made by the parties, the tribunal framed the issues and recorded the evidence of the witnesses. 9. In response to the service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and also sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 8. Based on the averments made by the parties, the tribunal framed the issues and recorded the evidence of the witnesses. 9. The claimants, in order prove their case, examined claimant No.2 as PW1 and got marked 13 documents. The respondents did not examine any witnesses, but got marked two documents. 10. The tribunal inter alia on the basis of the evidence on record held that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending car. It was further held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to a tune of Rs.37,60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 30.06.2015 till realization. Further, the respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amounts to the claimants. 11. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.2 Insurance Company has filed the appeal. After service of notice, the claimants have also filed the crossobjection seeking for enhancement of compensation. 12. The appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal on the ground that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, which resulted in accident, which has been ignored by the tribunal. The claimants have contended that the tribunal erred in not considering the income of the claimant at Rs.40,000/- per month. 13. It is noticed that the tribunal after considering all the evidence on record including the income tax returns filed by the deceased came to the conclusion that the income of the deceased was Rs.24,500/- per month. The claimants have not been able to show as to how the income arrived at by the tribunal is erroneous. In our opinion, the tribunal was correct in calculating the income of the deceased at Rs.24,500/- per month. 14. The insurance company contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in causing of the accident. It is noticed that the insurance company has not let in any evidence; they are relying upon the spot sketch to prove that there was contributory negligence. The spot sketch shows that when the accident happened the deceased was riding his motorcycle on the left side of the road when the offending car was moving on the right side of the road. The spot sketch shows that when the accident happened the deceased was riding his motorcycle on the left side of the road when the offending car was moving on the right side of the road. The tribunal has rightly concluded that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 15. The learned counsel for the insurance company has drawn our attention to the calculations done by the tribunal, while determining the future prospects, loss of consortium and funeral expenses and contended it to be erroneous. We find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company. 16. Admittedly, the accident has taken place in the year 2015. The income of the deceased is determined at Rs.24,500/- per month. The deceased was aged about 42 years as on the date of accident. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 , 30% of the income has to be added to the annual income of the deceased as future prospects. Hence, the monthly income shall be considered at Rs.31,850/-. Taking into consideration the deduction and income tax paid for the assessment year 2014-15 by the deceased, the net annual income of the deceased is determined at Rs.2,57,349/-. Out of the said amount, if 1/4th is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.1,93,012/-. To the said income of the deceased, the multiplier of 14 is taken into consideration as the age of the deceased was 42 years at the time of accident. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.27,02,168/- (Rs.1,93,012 x14) on account of "loss of dependency". 17. Further, the claimants are the widow, minor children, mother and father of the deceased. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram, (2018) ACJ 2782 , the appellant Nos.1 to 5 are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- on account of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. 18. In addition, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. 19. Thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- on account of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. 18. In addition, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. 19. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.29,32,168/- as compensation and the compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the payment is made. 20. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the tribunal is modified. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the cross-objection is dismissed. 21. The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be transmitted to the tribunal for disbursement.