JUDGMENT : Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both sides, arguments are heard for final disposal. 2. This appeal has been filed by the claimants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Sahul Hameed, assailing the judgment and award dated 26.10.2013 passed in MVC No.813/2012 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal & II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangalore, D.K. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ for the sake of brevity). 3. The present appeal is only on the question of quantum of compensation. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Tribunal. 4. The claimants had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- on account of death of Sri Sahul Hameed in a motor vehicle accident. 5. The facts briefly stated in the petition are that on 04.04.2012 at 12.15 p.m. the deceased Sahul Hameed was driving the autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KA19A4193 along with the deceased by name Abdul Razak, when the said autorikshaw reached near Nirmala Travels Office, Kolya, NH66, Someshwara Village, Mangalore Taluk, a bus bearing Reg.No.KA19A6063 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the autorikshaw, as a result of which, Sahul Hameed and Abdul Razak succumbed to the injuries. Due to untimely death of the main earning member of the family, the petitioners have become orphans and have been deprived of the financial support. The respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehiclebus are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 6. On service of notice, respondents have appeared and filed objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. Further, it is contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Sahul Hameed, who was driving the autorikshaw in a rash and negligent manner. The relationship of the deceased with the petitioner is also denied. The compensation claimed is exorbitant and disproportionate. The respondents are not liable to pay the entire compensation. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. The relationship of the deceased with the petitioner is also denied. The compensation claimed is exorbitant and disproportionate. The respondents are not liable to pay the entire compensation. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioners prove that the late Sahul Hammed died due to the Motor Vehicle accident that occurred on 04.04.2012 at about 12.15 p.m., near Nirmala Travels Office, Kolya, Someshwara Village, Mangalore Taluk, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bus bearing registration No.KA19A6303? 2. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased/driver of the vehicle Auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA19A4193 and he was guilty of contributory negligence? 3. Whether the petitioners prove that they are entitle for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 4. What Award or Order? 8. On appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased Sahul Hameed met with the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and succumbed to the injuries and has further held that the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.6,30,000/with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is as under: Funeral and obsequies expenses Rs. 15,000/­ Loss of Love and affection Rs. 50,000/­ Loss of Consortium Rs. 25,000/­ Loss of dependency Rs.5,40,000/­ Total Rs.6,30,000/­ 9. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants claimants and learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company. Perused the impugned judgment and the records. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contends the Tribunal has committed error in considering the notional income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/instead of Rs.7,000/and the additional compensation of 40% is required to be awarded towards future prospects as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and disproportionate, as such, there are valid grounds for enhancement of compensation. 12. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and disproportionate, as such, there are valid grounds for enhancement of compensation. 12. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company has submitted that the accident is of the year 2012, considering the income of the deceased at the relevant period of accident, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the notional income of the deceased was Rs.4,500/which is proper and justified. Earlier, there was no concept of awarding 40% of additional compensation towards future prospects. The compensation awarded under various heads is reasonable, there are no valid grounds for enhancement of compensation. 13. Having heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment and the records, the point that arises for consideration are: i. Whether there are valid grounds for modification of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal? In other words, whether the claimants are entitled for additional compensation? ii. What order? 14. It is an admitted fact that the deceased met with an accident as he was hit by the bus bearing Reg.No.KA19A6303, as a result of which, the victim succumbed to the injuries. The finding given by the Tribunal regarding the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver has not been disputed or denied. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners is regarding enhancement of compensation. 15. In the present case, the deceased was aged about 38 years and he was said to be a driver of autorikshaw. The petitioners have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/per month, but there is no evidence to show that the deceased was working as a driver and thereby he was earning income of Rs.15,000/. Even though P.W.3 is the owner of the autorikshaw and has stated that the deceased was a driver, but no records are produced to show that he had a valid driving licence or he was working as a driver. Under these circumstances, the notional income of the deceased is taken as Rs.7,000/as against Rs.4,500/as held by the Tribunal. 16. Even though P.W.3 is the owner of the autorikshaw and has stated that the deceased was a driver, but no records are produced to show that he had a valid driving licence or he was working as a driver. Under these circumstances, the notional income of the deceased is taken as Rs.7,000/as against Rs.4,500/as held by the Tribunal. 16. Having regard to the latest dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 40% of the income i.e., Rs.7000 X 40% = Rs.2,800, required to be added to the notional income. Thus, the total income of the deceased would be Rs.9,800/, out of which 1/3rd requires to be deducted towards his personal expenses as there are two dependents on the deceased, hence, after necessary deduction, the net income that would have contributed to his family would be Rs.6,533/. 17. As already stated above, considering the age of the deceased as 38 years, the appropriate multiplier is taken as 15. Thus, as per the necessary calculation, the compensation requires to be awarded towards loss of dependency would be Rs.11,75,940/(Rs.6,533 X 12 X 15) as against Rs.5,40,000/. In addition to that a sum of Rs.70,000/requires to be added towards conventional heads as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi(supra). 18. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to the extent as follows: Sl.No. Particulars Amount 1 Loss of dependency Rs.11,75,940­00 2 Towards conventional heads Rs.70,000­00 Total Rs.12,45,940­00 (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty only) 19. In the result, I proceed to pass the following ORDER : i. The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part. ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.12,45,940/with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization as against Rs.6,30,000/as awarded by the Tribunal. iii. The respondent No.2Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance compensation before the jurisdictional Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment/award. iii. The respondent No.2Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance compensation before the jurisdictional Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment/award. The apportionment and disbursement of the enhanced compensation shall remain the same as per the order of the Tribunal. Parties to bear their respective costs.