JUDGMENT : 1. In view of memo dated 14.03.2018, notice to the 1st respondent is dispensed with at the risk of the appellants. 2. Accepting the reasons stated in the accompanying 3. The top noted appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation questioning the judgment and award dated 28.03.2017 passed in MVC No.2018/2014 on the file of the XXII A.S.C.J. & XX affidavit, the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A. No.1/2017 is accordingly allowed. A.C.M.M. & Member, M.A.C.T., Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 4. Appellants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal contending that on 25.08.2014 at about 8.30 p.m., the husband of 1st appellant was proceeding on the left side of road, when he reached Narayana Hrudayala Hospital on BangaloreHosur Service Road, at that juncture the driver of the offending vehicle Mahindra Maximo bearing Registration No.KA51/A4806 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the husband of the 1st appellant from the hind side. On account of the said accident he sustained grievous injuries and he was immediately shifted to Sparsh Hospital, Bangalore and inspite of best treatment he succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. The appellants/claimants contended that the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 45 years and by doing mason work he was earning Rs.800 to 900/per day and they were totally dependents on the income of the deceased. Hence filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/. 5. The 2nd respondent – Insurance Company on receipt of notice contested the proceedings and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the claim petition. The 2nd respondent specifically denied the very involvement of the offending vehicle in the alleged accident and a contention was taken that offending vehicle has been falsely implicated by the appellants/claimants in collusion with the insured. The 2nd respondent also took a defence that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident did not possess valid 2nd and effective Driving License. Further, the respondent – Insurance Company denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. On this set of objections prayed for dismissal of claim petition. 6. The Tribunal based on the rival contentions by the parties, has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioners prove that, they are the legal representatives of the deceased Sri Madalaimuthu? 2. Further, the respondent – Insurance Company denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. On this set of objections prayed for dismissal of claim petition. 6. The Tribunal based on the rival contentions by the parties, has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioners prove that, they are the legal representatives of the deceased Sri Madalaimuthu? 2. Whether the petitioners prove that, the deceased Madalaimuthu had died due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident that occurred on 25.08.2014 at about 8.30 p.m., infront of Narayana Hrudayala Hospital, Bommasandra, BangaloreHosur NH7 Service Road, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore, due to the rash and negligent driving of the Mahindra Maximo bearing Reg. No.KA51/A4806 by its driver as alleged? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation as claimed? If so, to what amount and from whom? 4. What order or award? 7. The appellants in support of their contention lead in oral evidence of 1st appellant as PW1 and relied on 2nd documentary evidence vide Exs.P1 to P9. The respondent – Insurance Company has raised serious contention in the written statement and denied the very involvement of the vehicle in the accident and contended it was falsely implicated to secure compensation. Though serious allegations was made in the written statement, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company has not chosen to lead in any rebuttal evidence. 8. The Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has answered issued No.2 in the affirmative by holding that the death of the husband of the 1st appellant is on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle and also held that the appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased. 9. While determining the quantum, the Tribunal has proceeded to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/per month and has added 30% towards future prospects and has proceeded to award a sum of Rs.9,12,600/towards loss of dependency and in all has awarded a sum of Rs.9,97,600/with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently argue and submit to this Court that the Tribunal erred in notionally assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/per month though the appellants have placed clinching evidence to indicate that the deceased was doing Mason work and had income at Rs.800/to Rs.900/per day. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently argue and submit to this Court that the Tribunal erred in notionally assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/per month though the appellants have placed clinching evidence to indicate that the deceased was doing Mason work and had income at Rs.800/to Rs.900/per day. On re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, this Court cannot find fault with the finding of the Tribunal that there is no proof or evidence on record to indicate actual income of the deceased. However, this Court is of the view that while assessing the income the Tribunal was not justified in restricting the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/per month. Hence, this Court relying on the chart issued by the Legal Services Authority would notionally assess the income at Rs.9,000/per month and by adding 25% future prospects to the income, it comes to Rs.11,230/per month. Out of Rs.11,230/, if 1/4th of it is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs.8437.50. The loss of dependency works out to Rs.13.16.250/(Rs.8437.50 x 12 x 13). Towards conventional heads Rs.70,000/is awarded. The appellant Nos.2 and 4 are entitled to filial consortium at Rs.40,000/each, the same comes to Rs.1,20,000/. Hence, the total compensation determined by this Court comes to Rs.15,06,200/as against Rs.9,97,600/awarded by the Tribunal. 11. For the reasons stated supra, the appeal is all owed in part by holding that the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.5,18,600/with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.