JUDGMENT S.G. Pandit, J. - The Insurance Company is in appeal aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 7.9.2018 passed in MVC No.2289/2014 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Khanapur (for short, 'Tribunal') praying for reduction of quantum of compensation. 2. Even though the appeal is listed for Admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally and disposed of by this judgment. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants are wife and children of the deceased Basavaraj Haladukar. The claimants had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the death of the deceased Basavaraj Haladukar in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 18.01.2014 at about 8.15 a.m., the deceased was proceeding in a motor cycle bearing No. KA-22/EA-6295, at that time, Indica Vista Car bearing Reg. No.KA-22/N-8349 came from opposite direction in a high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed against motor cycle of the deceased. Due to which, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries. Subsequently, the deceased succumbed to the injuries during treatment. It is stated that the deceased was a Teacher in Govt. Primary School and owning more than 5 acres of gardening land and earning more than Rs.6,00,000/- income per year apart from salary received as a Teacher. 4. On service of notice, both respondents appeared before the Tribunal and filed objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. Further, respondent No.1-owner in his statement stated that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2- insurer and insurance policy was in force as on the date of the accident. Respondent No.2 contended that the alleged accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased Basavaraj Haladukar and he was not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident. 5. Claimant No.1-wife of the deceased herself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents as per Exs.P1 to P31 in support of their case. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents. 5. Claimant No.1-wife of the deceased herself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents as per Exs.P1 to P31 in support of their case. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal on meticulous consideration of the material on record awarded compensation of Rs.45,04,481/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization on the following heads: Loss of Consortium Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of love & affection Rs.3,00,000/- Loss of estate Rs.1,00,000/- Medical expenses Rs.59,457/- Transportation charges and funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Loss of dependency Rs.37,20,024/- Agriculture income Rs.2,00,000/- -------------------- Total Rs.45,04,481/- -------------------- 6. While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.25,550/- and added Rs.2,00,000/- towards agricultural income. The insurance company contending that the Tribunal awarded excess compensation than entitled by the claimants is before this Court in this appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellantinsurance company, Sri. G.N.Raichur, through video conference and learned counsel for the respondentsclaimants- in person. Perused the material on record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding compensation to the extent of Rs.45,04,481/-. It is his submission that while assessing the income of the claimants, the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate Ex.P23-salary certificate of the deceased. Instead of taking income of the deceased at Rs.25,500/- per month, it took at Rs.25,550/-. Further it is submitted that the Tribunal failed to deduct statutory deduction such as professional tax and income tax which would be around Rs.940/- per month. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal without there being any basis added Rs.2,00,000/- towards agricultural income to the total compensation. He submits that there is no basis nor material to add said agricultural income while arriving at total compensation. Further, learned counsel relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 , submits that the compensation awarded on the conventional heads is on the higher side whereas the claimants would be entitled for Rs.70,000/- on the conventional heads. Therefore, he prays for reduction of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation which needs no interference. Therefore, he prays for reduction of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation which needs no interference. Further, it is his submission that Rs.2,00,000/- as agricultural income is added while arriving at total compensation based on Exs.P24 to P26-Record of Rights relating to landed properties and Exs.P19 and P20-Sugar cane supplied receipt from sugar factory. Further he justifies the compensation awarded on conventional heads by stating that the claimants 2 and 3 are minor children who have lost love and affection of their father. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for our consideration in this appeal: a) Whether the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.25,550/- per month of the deceased is proper and correct? b) Whether addition of Rs.2,00,000/- towards agricultural income is proper and correct? and c) Whether the compensation awarded on the conventional heads is proper and correct? Our answer to the above points would be in the negative for the following reasons: 11. Occurrence of the accident on 18.01.2014 and death of the deceased Basavaraj Haladukar in the said accident involving motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA-22/EA-6295 and Indica Vista Car bearing Reg. No.KA-22/N-8349 are not in dispute in this appeal. The insurance company is before this Court in this appeal praying for reduction of quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has granted excess compensation. There is no dispute that the deceased was working as Primary School Teacher and the claimants placed on record Ex.P23-salary certificate of the deceased issued by the Education Department, which would indicate the salary of the deceased at Rs.25,500/-. But on what basis, the Tribunal took Rs.25,550/- as salary of the deceased is not known. Hence, taking note of Ex.P23, salary of the deceased is taken at Rs.25,500/- per month. The Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased had admittedly not deducted statutory deduction such as, professional tax and income tax. It is submitted at Bar by both the counsel that the deceased was paying Rs.940/- per month towards statutory deductions i.e. professional tax and income tax. The Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased had admittedly not deducted statutory deduction such as, professional tax and income tax. It is submitted at Bar by both the counsel that the deceased was paying Rs.940/- per month towards statutory deductions i.e. professional tax and income tax. The said amount of Rs.940/- is to be deducted out of the income of Rs.25,500/-. If the said amount is deducted, the income of the deceased would be Rs.24,560/- per month. Thus, the income of the deceased could be taken at Rs.24,560/- per month instead of Rs.25,550/- assessed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded 30% of the assessed income towards future prospects which is not disturbed in the absence of appeal from the claimants. Taking note of the same, the claimants would be entitled for compensation on the head of loss of dependency as under: Rs.24,560 + 30% = Rs.31928 1/3 = Rs.21285 x 12 x 14 = Rs.35,75,880/- 12. The Insurance Company contends that there is no basis for adding Rs.2,00,000/- on the head agricultural income. The claimants have not placed on record any material to indicate the exact income of the deceased from agriculture, but the claimants have placed on record Exs.P19 and P20-sugar cane supplied receipts, Exs.P24 to 26- Record of Rights relating to lands owned by the deceased and Ex.P27-Receipt from Sugar Factory. But those documents would not establish the exact agricultural income of the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased was a government servant and he was required to file every year assets and liabilities showing his sources of income. But no material is placed on record to indicate that the agricultural income of Rs.2,00,000/- was being intimated to employer i.e. government. In the absence of those material documents to exactly demonstrate the income from agriculture, the Tribunal committed an error in adding Rs.2,00,000/- on the head of agricultural income while arriving at total compensation. 13. The next contention urged by the insurance company is that the compensation awarded on the conventional heads is on the higher side. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,00,000/- on the conventional heads i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has held that wherever the deceased was a married person, the claimants would be entitled for Rs.70,000/- on conventional head. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,00,000/- on the conventional heads i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has held that wherever the deceased was a married person, the claimants would be entitled for Rs.70,000/- on conventional head. The Tribunal committed grave error in awarding total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on conventional head. In the instant case, the claimants would be entitled for Rs.70,000/- on conventional heads and Rs.40,000/- each for claimants 2 and 3 towards parental consortium as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanuram and Others, (2018) ACJ 2782 . Thus, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- including filial consortium on conventional head as against Rs.5,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14. In all, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation as under: Loss of dependency (including future prospects) Rs.35,75,880 Conventional heads (including filial consortium) Rs.1,50,000/- Medical expenses Rs.59,457/- Total Rs.37,85,337/- 15. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.37,85,337/- as against Rs.45,04,481/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 16. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) Appeal filed by the insurance company is allowed in part. b) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.37,85,337/- instead of Rs.45,04,481/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. c) Apportionment, deposit and disbursement would be as ordered by the Tribunal in the same proportion. d) The statutory amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith for disbursement. e) Draw modified award accordingly.