JUDGMENT : 1. MFA No.4493/2016 has been filed by the Insurance Company whereas MFA No.7372/2016 has been filed by the claimants against the judgment dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Since both the appeals arise out of the same accident, they are 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 23.03.2014 at about 5.45 p.m. when the deceased Raghavendra B. was driving a moped at B.B.Road near railway bridge byepass, at that time, a car bearing registration No.KA03 D3508 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the moped of the deceased. As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. 3. The claimants namely wife, parents and girl child of the deceased filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) on the ground that the deceased was aged about 29 years at the time of accident and was employed as Service Engineer in BNB Security and Automation and was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. It was further submitted that the deceased died on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and the claimants claimed the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/- along with interest. On being served with the notice of the proceedings, the respondent No.1 filed written statement and denied the contents of the petition. It was denied that the Insurance Company had issued the policy in respect of the offending car. It was further submitted that that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and the same was falsely implicated by colluding with the respondent No.2 and the investigating officer. It was also alleged that the brother of the deceased lodged a complaint to the police on 23.03.2014 at 8.10 p.m. in which the number of the car was not mentioned. However, during the course of investigation, the investigating officer, all of a sudden, has mentioned about the offending vehicle in the panchanama. It was further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having an effective and valid license and did not have valid fitness certificate to ply on the public road. However, during the course of investigation, the investigating officer, all of a sudden, has mentioned about the offending vehicle in the panchanama. It was further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having an effective and valid license and did not have valid fitness certificate to ply on the public road. It is also pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive. The respondent No.2 filed written statement in which he denied the averments made in the claim petition. However, it was admitted that he was the owner of the offending vehicle and the aforesaid vehicle was insured with the respondent No.1. It was also pleaded that his vehicle has not dashed against the moped of the deceased and the claimants have given a false complaint before the police authorities and have falsely implicated his car. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and recorded the evidence. The petitioner No.2 got examined herself as PW1 and once P.S.Ashok as PW2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P35. The respondent No.1 has examined R.Vimal Raj, H.Krishnamurthy, K.R.Upadhyaya, H.B.Guruprasad as RW1, RW2, RW3 and RW5 and got marked documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and Ex.R14 to R16. The respondent No.2 examined the special power of attorney holder N.Narasimhaiah and got marked documents namely Ex.R7 to Ex.R13. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia,held that the accident took place on the ground of rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No.KA03 D3508 on the date of accident. It was further held that the claimant was entitled to Rs.68,88,419/along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. as compensation. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the brother of the deceased had lodged the first information report in which the number of the vehicle was not mentioned. Learned counsel has also invited our attention to RW4, the statement of N.Narasimhaiah and has pointed out that the aforesaid witness has clearly stated that the car namely the offending vehicle was falsely implicated in the aforesaid offence. It is further submitted that a criminal case was registered against the driver of the car and in the aforesaid proceedings, the driver of the car has been acquitted. It is further submitted that a criminal case was registered against the driver of the car and in the aforesaid proceedings, the driver of the car has been acquitted. Therefore, it is evident that the offending vehicle in question was falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in taking into account the future prospects at the rate of 50%. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is inadequate and in fact the gross income of the deceased ought to have been taken into account instead of net income of the deceased and the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From perusal of Ex.R1 i.e. alleged history of road traffic accident, there is a mention of two wheeler with four wheeler. The police has drawn a panchanama on 24.03.2014 in which it is clearly stated that the eye witnesses informed that on 23.03.2014 at about 5.45 p.m. on Bangalore – Bellary road near railway bridge bypass, vehicle bearing No.KA03 D3508 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner caused the accident. It is also pertinent to mention here that RW4 who was the witness produced by the Insurance Company, has admitted in the crossexamination that the driver informed his son at 7.30 p.m. on the date of accident that the accident has taken place due to his negligence. He has further admitted that the police authorities has filed the charge sheet against the driver of the car. RW5 has stated in his evidence that the charge sheet was filed against Shivaraj namely the driver of the offending vehicle and the driving license of the aforesaid vehicle has been produced as Ex.P12. RW3 has admitted that as per the record, patient was unconscious at the time of accident when he was brought to the hospital. It is also pertinent to mention here that the respondent No.2 who was the best person to give evidence about the contents of Ex.R16 i.e. the IMV report, has not been examined. RW3 has admitted that as per the record, patient was unconscious at the time of accident when he was brought to the hospital. It is also pertinent to mention here that the respondent No.2 who was the best person to give evidence about the contents of Ex.R16 i.e. the IMV report, has not been examined. The Claims Tribunal, on the basis of the aforesaid evidence on record and taking into account the fact that the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act are summary trial in nature and facts have to be proved on preponderance of probabilities has indicated that the contention of the Insurance Company that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident cannot be accepted. It has further been held that on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had the valid and effective driving license. 8. Now we may advert to the quantum of compensation. The deceased was employed as a Service Engineer at BNB Security and Automation Services (P) Ltd. and drawing a gross salary of Rs.30,000/-. After deducting the amount on account of professional income as well as income tax, the Tribunal has taken into account the net salary of the deceased at Rs.28,501/-. To the aforesaid amount, 40% is required to be added as future prospects. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.39,901/-. Taking into account the number of dependants which is 4, 1/4th has to be deducted from the monthly income of the deceased. Thus, it comes to Rs.29,925/- and if the age of the deceased which was 29 years at the time of accident is taken into account, the multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.61,04,700/- on account of loss of dependency. In addition, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.62,567/- on account of medical expenses and Rs.25,000/- on account of transportation of dead body. The widow of the deceased is entitled to Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NANURAM’ 2018 ACJ 2782 .The parents of the deceased as well as the minor daughter are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of loss of consortium. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate. LTD. Vs. NANURAM’ 2018 ACJ 2782 .The parents of the deceased as well as the minor daughter are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of loss of consortium. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs.63,82,267/- on account of compensation. 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 amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Claims Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.