JUDGMENT : Though this appeal is listed today for admission, the same is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional District Judge and M.A.C.T. at Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.C.No.259/2016 in terms of the judgment and award dated 04.10.2016. Parties will henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The claim petition discloses that the claimants are the legal representatives of Shabreen Taj who was aged 19 years at the time of accident. It is stated that on 08.01.2016, Shabreen Taj and her relative were riding on a motorbike bearing Registration No.KA-06-EE-0672 from Bukkapatna Village towards Hoysalakatte Village. When they reached Bukkapatna Forest, a bus bearing Registration No.KA-06-B-5436 (henceforth referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) dangerously driven by its driver and dashed against the motorbike. The said Shabreen Taj and the pillion rider fell down and suffered serious injuries and the said Shabreen Taj died at the spot. The claimants contended that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Hence, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. It was stated that the deceased was pursuing her degree course and was also earning Rs.15,000/-per month by doing tailoring and household work. The owner of the offending vehicle contested the claim petition by denying the contentions therein. The insurer contested the claim petition claiming that the deceased was negligent and was responsible for the accident as she lost control of the motorbike. The insurer alternatively contended that the claimants had conspired with the jurisdictional police in implicating the offending vehicle. He also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid license. 4. Based on these rival contentions, the Tribunal framed issues and set down the claim petition for trial. The claimant No.2 was examined as PW.1 and he marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P6. The owner/insurer of the offending vehicle neither lead any evidence nor marked any documents. 5. Based on the documents available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The claimant No.2 was examined as PW.1 and he marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P6. The owner/insurer of the offending vehicle neither lead any evidence nor marked any documents. 5. Based on the documents available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. Insofar the claim for compensation is concerned, the Tribunal noticed that the claimants have not placed on record any documents in proof of the income of the deceased and hence, the Tribunal accepted the notional income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.6,000/-per month. Since the deceased was a spinster, 50% of her notional income was deducted towards her personal expenses and the Tribunal awarded the following compensation: Sl. No. Heads under which compensation awarded Amount in Rupees 1 Towards loss of dependency 6,48,000/- 2 Towards funeral and conveyance expenses 20,000/- 3 Towards loss of love and affection 20,000/- Total 6,88,000/- 6. The Tribunal directed the insurer of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation along with interest at the rate of 8% per month from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that in similar circumstances this Court has considered the notional income at a sum of Rs.9,500/-per month. He also contended that the deceased was pursuing her degree, hence the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards ‘loss of future prospects’ at 40%. In addition, he contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded adequate compensation towards ‘loss of filial consortium’ to each of the claimants as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU RAM & ORS.’ reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and ‘UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR AND ORS.’ IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2705/2020 DECIDED ON 30.06.2020. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer contended that the deceased was not an earning member of the family and therefore, assumption of income of the deceased at Rs.9,500/-per month is excessive. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of the Court that this Court in M.F.A.No.1892/2017 had considered the notional income of a medical student at a sum of Rs.9,900/-per month. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of the Court that this Court in M.F.A.No.1892/2017 had considered the notional income of a medical student at a sum of Rs.9,900/-per month. He therefore contended that the income taken by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for interference of this Court. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the leaned counsel and we have also perused the records of the Tribunal and its Judgment and Award. 10. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle is not challenged by the insurer. 11. In so far as the claim for compensation is concerned, the deceased was 19 years old at the time of the accident and it is stated that she was pursuing her first year degree. It may be that there is no proof regarding the income of the deceased but yet it cannot be ignored that the deceased was the only child and therefore, she must have contributed to the upkeep and maintenance of the family in some form or the other. In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RADHAKRISHNA AND ANOTHER VS. GOKUL AND OTHERS reported in 2013 (16) SCC PAGE 585 held that a lump sum compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-is to be awarded to the parents of the deceased. 12. It is seen that under similar circumstances, this Court has considered the notional income at Rs.9,500/-per month. There is no reason as to why the same benefit should not be extended to the claimants. As a matter of fact, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PAPPU DEO YADAV VS. NARESH KUMAR AND OTHERS reported in 2020 SCC ONLINE SC 752 was considering the case of an injured claimant aged 23 years and considered his notional income at a sum of Rs.15,000/-per month. Having regard to the above, the notional income of the deceased is considered at a sum of Rs.9,500/-per month. Since the deceased was pursuing her education, it was quite evident that she would have prospered in her career and therefore, the claimants are entitled to ‘loss of future prospects’ at 40% of the notional income. Having regard to the above, the notional income of the deceased is considered at a sum of Rs.9,500/-per month. Since the deceased was pursuing her education, it was quite evident that she would have prospered in her career and therefore, the claimants are entitled to ‘loss of future prospects’ at 40% of the notional income. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, the Tribunal ought to have awarded adequate compensation towards ‘loss of filial consortium’ to each of the claimants as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. and SATINDER KAUR AND ORS. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be reconsidered and re-determined as follows: Sl. No. Heads under which compensation awarded Amount in Rupees 1 Loss of dependency ([Rs.9,500/-+ 40% of Rs.9,500/-]/2 X 12 X 18) 14,36,400/- 2 Filial Consortium (Rs.40,000/-to each of the claimants) 80,000/- 3 Funeral expenses 15,000/- Total 15,31,400/- 13. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed-in-part and the impugned Judgment and Award of the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.259/2016 is modified and the compensation awarded to the claimants is enhanced from Rs.6,88,000/-to Rs.15,31,400/-, which is payable by the insurer along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The owner and insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the compensation with interest as stated above within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this Judgment.