JUDGMENT : 1. MFA No.9317/2015 has been filed by the Insurance Company whereas MFA No.4825/2015 has been filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) against the judgment dated 15.04.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Since both the appeals arise out of the same accident and the same judgment, they were heard analogously and have been decided by this common judgment. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated are that on 20.11.2013, at about 1.00 a.m., the deceased was walking on the extreme left side of Ramamurthynagar main road, near railway bridge along with his friend. At that time, a car bearing registration No.KA-03 AB-540 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased from behind. As a result of the impact of the accident, deceased fell down and succumbed to the injuries. 3. The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident and was working as a driver and was drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/-. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car. An amount of Rs.30,00,000/-along with interest was claimed as compensation. 4. Respondent No.1 filed written statement in which inter alia it was pleaded that the accident took place solely on account of negligence of the deceased as he was walking in the middle of the road and crossing the road without observing the traffic. It was also denied that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident. The age, avocation and income of the deceased was also disputed. It was further pleaded that the claim for compensation is excessive and exorbitant. The respondent No.2, in the statement of objections, inter alia pleaded that he was the owner of the offending vehicle and the vehicle was insured with respondent No.1 and policy of insurance was in force at the time of accident. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. The respondents examined one B.Guruprasad as RW-1, and got marked document Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending car by its driver. It was held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.8,70,000/-along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. It was further held, that the Insurance Company as well as the owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. In the aforesaid factual background, these appeals have been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation as the owner of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence and that the Tribunal ought to have invoked the principle of pay and recovery in view of decision of the Supreme Court in 'PAPPU AND OTHERS Vs. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANR.' AIR 2018 SC 592 . It was submitted that the Insurance Company be granted liberty to pay the compensation and to recover the same from its owner. It is further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the deceased was negligent and the accident was caused as he was walking in the middle of the road in the night at 1 a.m. without observing the vehicle or traffic. It is further submitted that the deceased was a driver but no evidence was adduced with regard to his income. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in assessing the income at Rs.7,000/-p.m. It is further submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding 50% on account of future prospects. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that since the deceased was a driver, therefore, his income should have been taken at Rs.10,000/-p.m. and the Tribunal has rightly added 50% of the income on account of future prospects. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that since the deceased was a driver, therefore, his income should have been taken at Rs.10,000/-p.m. and the Tribunal has rightly added 50% of the income on account of future prospects. It is further submitted that the amount awarded to the claimants under other heads is on the lower side which deserves to be enhanced suitably. 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is well settled in law that the claimants are required to prove the accident on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. In view of the aforesaid legal principle, we may advert to the evidence on record. The Tribunal has taken into account the evidence of PW-1 and the other documentary evidence and has recorded a finding that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The aforesaid finding is based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record and therefore, we affirm the same. 9. Now we may advert to the quantum of compensation. The deceased at the time of accident was aged about 26 years and was employed as a driver which is evident from the driving licence Ex.P8. But no evidence has been adduced with regard to the income of the deceased. However, the fact remains that the deceased was a skilled person as he was driving the vehicle. Therefore, some element of guess work would be involved in assessing the income of the deceased in motor vehicle cases. Therefore, we assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-p.m. To the aforesaid amount, in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS’ AIR 2017 SC 5157 , 40% of the amount has to be added on account of future prospects. Thus, the income comes to Rs.14,000/-. Out of the aforesaid amount, 1/2 has to be deducted towards personal expenses as the deceased was a bachelor and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.7,000/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 25 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of ‘17’ has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.14,28,000/-(Rs.7,000 x 12 x 17) on account of loss of dependency. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 25 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of ‘17’ has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.14,28,000/-(Rs.7,000 x 12 x 17) on account of loss of dependency. 10. In view of laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NANU RAM & ORS.’ (2018) 18 SCC 130 , which has been subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in ‘UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR AND ORS.’ AIR 2020 SC 3076 each of the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/-on account of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.80,000/-. In addition, claimants are held entitled to Rs.30,000/-on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimants are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.15,38,000/-. The aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount of compensation. The Insurance Company is granted liberty to deposit the amount of compensation and to recover the same from the owner. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified. Amount in deposit is transmitted to the Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.