JUDGMENT : H.T. Narendra Prasad J. MFA No.265/2019 is filed by the insurance company whereas MFA No.9137/2018 is 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 20.08.2018 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 appeals briefly stated are that on 23.12.2016 at about 6.30 p.m. the claimant was proceeding in the bicycle. When he reached Vatasahosahalli cross, Nagaragere Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapura District, the driver of the Tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA40/A3956 drove the same at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the bicycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized and he succumbed to the injuries on 13.01.2017. 3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of accident and was an agriculturist and also doing milk vending business and was earning Rs.20,000/p.m. 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 separate written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded by respondent No.1 that the claim petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. It was further pleaded that the said vehicle is insured with respondent No.2 and it has issued comprehensive policy and the same was in force as on the date of the accident. It was further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle and there is valid permit. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. It was pleaded by respondent No.2 that liability, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. It was pleaded by respondent No.2 that liability, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. It was further pleaded that the owner of the offending vehicle and the concerned police have not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 134(c) and 158(6) of the Act. It was further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. It was further pleaded that the offending vehicle had no valid FC and permit and as such the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. 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 PW1 and got exhibited 18 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. On behalf of respondents, an officer of the insurance company was examined as RW1 and an official of the RTO office as RW2 and got exhibited 2 documents namely Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. 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, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,25,000/along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed. 6. The learned counsel for the insurance company has raised the following contentions: Firstly, at the time of the accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and insured has violated the policy condition, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed. 6. The learned counsel for the insurance company has raised the following contentions: Firstly, at the time of the accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and insured has violated the policy condition, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal is not justified in directing the insurance company to pay the amount with liberty to recover the same. Secondly, as per Ex.P13, Adhar card, the year of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 1965, the Tribunal after considering the same, rightly held that the deceased was aged 52 years at the time of the accident and applied the multiplier of ‘11’. Thirdly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/per month by doing agriculture and milk vending business, they have not produced any document to establish the same. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the notional income of the deceased. Fourthly, for the accident occurred in the year 2016, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% is on the higher side. Fifthly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the other heads are just and proper. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal filed by the insurance company and dismissal of the appeal filed by the claimants. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants has raised the following contentions: Firstly, at the time of the accident deceased was aged about 48 years as per voters ID – Ex.P18 wherein the year of birth is mentioned as 1969. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in considering the age of the deceased as 52 years. Secondly, deceased was an agriculturist and also doing milk vending business and was earning Rs.20,000/per month, the Tribunal is not justified in considering the monthly income of the deceased as only Rs.7,500/-. Thirdly, addition of future prospects considered by the Tribunal at 10% is on the lower side. Fourthly, since there are 3 dependents, the Tribunal is not justified in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, it should have been 1/3rd. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for ‘loss of consortium and loss of love and affection’ is on the lower side. Fourthly, since there are 3 dependents, the Tribunal is not justified in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, it should have been 1/3rd. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for ‘loss of consortium and loss of love and affection’ is on the lower side. Lastly, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court n the case of ‘PAPPU AND OTHERS vs. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANOTHER’ AIR 2018 SC 592 and a Full Bench judgment of this Court in ‘NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. BIJAPUR vs. YALLAVVA AND ANOTHER’ ILR 2020 Kar.2239, the Tribunal has rightly held that the insurance company has to pay the compensation amount with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, the insured. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal filed by the claimants and dismissal of the appeal filed by the insurance company. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 9. 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 claimants have not produced any evidence or documents with regard to the income of the deceased. Therefore, the notional income has to be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2016, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.9,500/- p.m. In respect of age of the deceased is concerned, claimants have produced Adhar card as per Ex.P13 and voters ID as per Ex.P18. In the Adhar card the year of the birth of the deceased is mentioned as 1965 and in the Voters ID, it is mentioned as 1969. The Tribunal taking into consideration all these aspects has rightly held that the deceased was aged about 52 years. There are 3 dependents. Claimant Nos. 2 and 3 have not produced any documents to establish that they are depending upon the income of the deceased. Taking into consideration the evidence of the parties the Tribunal has rightly held that the claimant Nos.2 and 3 are not dependents on the income of the deceased. There are 3 dependents. Claimant Nos. 2 and 3 have not produced any documents to establish that they are depending upon the income of the deceased. Taking into consideration the evidence of the parties the Tribunal has rightly held that the claimant Nos.2 and 3 are not dependents on the income of the deceased. But as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION’ (2009) 6 SCC 121 , since the deceased was married and the first claimant is the wife of the deceased, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, taking into consideration the notional income of the deceased as Rs.9,500/per month, 10% 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 CO. LTD. vPRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [ AIR 2017 SC 5157 ]. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.10,450/, out of which, we deem it appropriate to deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly income comes to Rs.6,967/. The deceased was aged about 52 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘11’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.9,19,644/- (Rs.6,967*12*11) on account of ‘loss of dependency’. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. – VNANU RAM reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 , claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of spousal consortium’, claimant Nos.2 and 3, children are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/each under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’. 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’. The compensation granted by the Tribunal under the head ‘medical expenses’ remains unaltered. 10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation: Compensation under Amount in different Heads (Rs.) Loss of dependency 9,19,644 Funeral expenses 15,000 Loss of estate 15,000 Loss of spousal consortium 40,000 Loss of Parental consortium 80,000 Medical expenses 10,000 Total 10,79,644 The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.10,79,644/. 10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation: Compensation under Amount in different Heads (Rs.) Loss of dependency 9,19,644 Funeral expenses 15,000 Loss of estate 15,000 Loss of spousal consortium 40,000 Loss of Parental consortium 80,000 Medical expenses 10,000 Total 10,79,644 The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.10,79,644/. In respect of interest is concerned, as per the 1st RBI guidelines interest from 4th October 2016 to August 2017, the rate of interest was fixed at 6.25%. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PAPPU (supra) and a Full Bench of this Court in the case of YALLAVVA (supra), the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6.25% p.a. from the date of petition till payment is made, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle – insured. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.