JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 02.06.2015 passed by the I Additional District Judge and Member, MACT (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for short) at Chikkamagaluru in MVC No.182/2014, whereby the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.3,64,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.12.2013 at about 10.30 a.m., one Mallamma was proceeding in the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-18-W-6151 as a pillion rider from Hucha Hanumanahalli to Chikkamagaluru to take treatment in the hospital and when they reached Marle Hosalli, Hucha Hanumanahalli Road, Amble Hobli, Chikkamagaluru Taluk, respondent No.1 being the rider of the said motor cycle rode the same in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, Mallamma lost control and fell down from the bike and sustained grievous injuries to her head and other parts of the body. Immediately, she was shifted to M.G. Hospital, Chikkamagaluru for first aid treatment. Thereafter, she was shifted to Government Wenlock Hospital, Mangaluru, wherein she succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, who are sons of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the MACT, Chikkamagaluru in MVC No.182/2014. To establish their case, they have examined one witness as PW.1 and got marked 15 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. On the other hand, respondent-Insurance Company has not examined any witnesses but got marked one document as Ex.R.1. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.3,64,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. Sri. Prakasha .M, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that at the time of the accident, deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-. 3. Sri. Prakasha .M, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that at the time of the accident, deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-. Secondly, he contended that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , in case the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 10% of the established income should be added, where the deceased was between the age group of 50 to 60 years. The Tribunal while calculating the loss of dependency has not added 10% of the income towards future prospects. Accordingly, 10% has to be added towards future prospects. Thirdly, he contended that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case Pranay Sethy (supra), the claimants are entitled for compensation under the conventional heads, namely for loss of estate Rs.15,000/- and for funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Fourthly, he contended that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram and others reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 , children are entitled for compensation under parental consortium. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal. 4. Per contra, Sri. S.V. Hegde Mulkhand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that even though the claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, they have not produced any documents to establish the same. Secondly, he contended the claimants are major sons of deceased Mallamma and they are not depending upon their mother. Therefore, claimants are not entitled for compensation for loss of expectancy. Thirdly, he contended that overall compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and proper. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the judgment and award. 6. It is not in dispute that one Mallamma died in a road traffic accident occurred on 11.12.2013 due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-18-W-6151. The claimants are sons of deceased Mallamma. Even though they claim that deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, they have not produced any documents to establish the same. The claimants are sons of deceased Mallamma. Even though they claim that deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, they have not produced any documents to establish the same. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was left with no other option, but to asses the income of the deceased notionally. While assessing the notional income, the Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, which is on the lower side. In catena of cases, this Court has relied upon the Chart prepared by Lok Adalath for the purpose of deciding the matters. According to the Chart, for an accident of the year, 2013, the income should be taken notionally as Rs.8,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court enhances the income of the deceased from Rs.4,500/- to Rs.8,000/- per month. 7. The Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has opined that in case the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 10% of the established income should be the warrant, where the deceased was between the age group of 50 to 60 years. In the case on hand, deceased was aged about 58 years. Accordingly, 10% of the monthly income has to be added towards future prospects for calculation of loss of dependency. At the time of the accident, deceased was aged about 58 years. The multiplier applicable to her age group is 9. Since there are two dependents, 1/3rd of the income has to be deducted towards her personal expenses. Accordingly, loss of dependency has been reassessed as follows:- Monthly income of the deceased - 8,000/- Add: 10% towards future prospects - 800/- - 8,800/- LESS: 1/3rd towards personal expenses - 2,933/- Actual monthly income - 5,867/- Multiplier - 9 Loss of dependency (5867 x 12 x 9) - 6,33,636/- 8. The Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has opined that for conventional heads, namely, loss of estate and funeral expenses, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Accordingly, the compensation under these heads are reassessed. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Magma (supra) has held that children are entitled for parental consortium. In the case on hand, claimants are sons of deceased and hence, they are entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- each towards loss of love and affection. 10. Accordingly, appeal is allowed-in-part. Accordingly, the compensation under these heads are reassessed. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Magma (supra) has held that children are entitled for parental consortium. In the case on hand, claimants are sons of deceased and hence, they are entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- each towards loss of love and affection. 10. Accordingly, appeal is allowed-in-part. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified as follows: Compensation under different Heads As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) As awarded by this Court (Rs.) Loss of Dependency 3,24,000/- 6,33,636/- Loss of love and affection - 60,000/- Medical expenses and funeral expenses 20,000/- 15,000/- Loss of estate - 15,000/- Loss of expectancy 20,000/- - Total 3,64,000/- 7,23,636/- The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount along with an interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The apportionment, release and fixed deposit shall be made as per the ratio adopted by the Tribunal.