JUDGMENT H.T. Narendra Prasad, J. - Mfa No.2848/2016 has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle whereas MFA No.3644/2016 has been filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act , for short) being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.01.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Since, both the appeals arise out of the same accident as well as a common judgment, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 09.12.2014 at about 12.45 p.m. the deceased Shivakumar was proceeding on the Hero Honda Passion motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-09/J-4068, at that time, a tempo bearing registration No. KA-51/3713 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the hospital. 3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of accident, was an electrical contractor and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- along with interest. 4. On service of summons, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that at the time of the accident the driver of the tempo was driving the vehicle cautiously and carefully. At that time, the deceased who was coming from the opposite side rashly and negligently could not control himself and banged the tempo and the tempo and motorcycle both were dragged towards southern side of the road and dashed against a nearby tree and stopped and thereby the tempo was badly damaged. It was further pleaded that the policy was in force as on the date of the accident but the driver of the offending vehicle had not possessed valid and effective driving licence to drive the same. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant No.1 wife of the deceased as PW-1, an eyewitness to the accident as PW-2 and the employer of the deceased as PW-3 and got exhibited 20 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. On behalf of the respondents, employer of the owner of the tempo was examined as RW-1 and an officer of the insurance company as RW-2 and got exhibited 5 documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R5. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and since the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle, dismissed the petition against the insurance company and directed the owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation amount along with interest. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.16,06,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being aggrieved, the owner of the offending vehicle has filed MFA No.2848/2016 and the claimants have filed MFA No.3644/2016 seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. The learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle submitted that the Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability on respondent No.1 owner of the tempo. The driver of the offending vehicle i.e., tempo was having LMV non-transport driving licence and he was driving the transport vehicle at the time of the accident. The Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, (2017) 14 SCC 663 , has held that licence to drive LMV includes licence to drive transport vehicle. Therefore, the respondent No.2 - insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that at the time of the accident the deceased was aged about 30 years, was doing electrical contract work and was earning Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month. The claimants have produced the bank statements of the deceased as per Exs.P13, P14 and P19. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that at the time of the accident the deceased was aged about 30 years, was doing electrical contract work and was earning Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month. The claimants have produced the bank statements of the deceased as per Exs.P13, P14 and P19. Without considering the same the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as only Rs.7,500/- per month. Secondly, as per the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. NANU RAM, (2018) ACJ 2782 , claimant No.1 is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head loss of spousal consortium and claimant No.2 is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head loss of love and affection . Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal filed by the claimants. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has made the following counter-contentions: Firstly, it is not in dispute that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle, he was having licence to drive LMV (non-transport) but he was driving the transport vehicle without any endorsement. Therefore, he has violated the policy conditions. The Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. Secondly, even though the claimants have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month they have not produced the income tax returns. Except producing the bank statements there is no other evidence to prove the same. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered the notional income as Rs.7,500/- per month. Thirdly, the Tribunal is not justified in considering addition of future prospects at 50% instead of 40% contrary to the law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS AIR 2017 SC 5157 . Hence, he sought for dismissal of both the appeals. 9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 10. It is not in dispute that deceased died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. Hence, he sought for dismissal of both the appeals. 9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 10. It is not in dispute that deceased died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN (supra), has held that a person having driving licence to drive LMV (non-transport) can also drive transport vehicle. In view of the said decision, we are of the opinion that the driver of the offending tempo was having a valid driving licence as on the date of accident. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal in respect of liability is concerned, the same is modified and respondent No.2 is directed to pay compensation to the claimants. 11. The claimants have not produced any evidence or documents with regard to the income of the deceased, but they have produced the bank statements. Taking into consideration the age, avocation of the deceased and the bank statements as per Exs.P13, P14 and P19, we are of the opinion that the monthly income of the deceased can be considered as Rs.12,000/-. 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 PRANAY SETHI (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.16,800/-, out of which, we deem it appropriate to deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly income comes to Rs.11,200/-. The deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is 17 . Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.22,84,800/- (Rs.11,200*12*17) on account of loss of dependency . In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE (supra), claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of spousal consortium and the claimant No.2, unmarried sister of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection . In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses . 12. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses . 12. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation: Compensation under different Heads Amount in (Rs.) Loss of dependency 22,84,800 Funeral expenses 15,000 Loss of estate 15,000 Loss of spousal consortium 40,000 Loss of love and affection 40,000 Total 23,94,800 The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.23,94,800/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Needless to state that the aforesaid 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. The office is directed to refund the amount in deposit to the appellant in MFA No.2848/2016. Accordingly, MFA No.2848/2016 is allowed and MFA No.3644/2016 is allowed-in-part.