JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation against the judgment dated 09.12.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short). 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 03.05.2015 at about 9.50 a.m., deceased N.Ashwath was traveling in a Tata Indica Vista Car bearing Registration No.KA-06-N-9540 from Tumkur to Davanagere as a passenger on NH-4 near Nithyananda Ashram, K.R.Halli Gate, Hiriyur Taluk. The driver of the said car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with a high speed resulting in toppling down under a bridge. Due to the accident, deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. 3. The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of accident and that he was working as a Guest Lecturer at Cheric Public School, Madhugiri and Government First Grade College, at Madhugiri and was also an Agriculturist. He was getting monthly income of Rs.35,000/-. It was further pleaded that the accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the private bus. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/-along with interest. 4. On service of summons, Respondent No.1 though appeared, did not file any objection. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed written statement in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. It was further contended that the Respondent No.1 has violated the provisions of the M.V Act and Rules. The petitioners are neither the legal heirs nor dependants of the deceased. Hence, they are not entitled for compensation. It is further contended that as on the date of the accident, the Respondent No.1 permitted the driver to use the vehicle for hire and reward and had not paid premium to cover the risk of such persons and has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The amount of compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The amount of compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined himself as PW-1. One Raghavendra and B.P.Prahlad were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P29. The respondents neither adduced any oral evidence nor documentary evidence. 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 vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.21,51,000/-along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realization. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 6. The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions: Firstly, that the Tribunal erred in determining the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/-though there was sufficient evidence regarding the income of deceased to be assessed at higher rate. Though P.W.2 and P.W.3 have categorically stated as per Exs.P8 and P9 that they were paying Rs.7,500/-p.m., and Rs.6,400/-p.m., respectively. When these amounts are calculated, the amount of monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.13,900/-instead of Rs.12,000/-. Secondly, that the compensation under the conventional heads of loss of consortium and funeral expenses was on the lower side. Thirdly, it is contended that the deceased at the time of his death was 27 years and if he was alive, he would have earned more than thrice of his income by getting a Government appointment. As such, the loss of dependency awarded by the Tribunal is deplorably lower. The learned counsel for the claimant relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in RAMRAO LAL BORSE AND ANOTHER vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in AIR 2018 SC 657 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that no documentary evidence has been adduced by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that no documentary evidence has been adduced by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased. It was also submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation. 9. In order to prove the income of the deceased, Ex.P8, the letter dated 27.05.2015 issued by the Head Master of Chirec Public School, Madhugiri has been produced. Another document, viz., Salary Certificate dated 16.05.2015 issued by Principal Government First Grade College, Madhugiri regarding deceased working as a Guest Lecturer has been produced as Ex.P9. The said two documents refer to deceased receiving salary of Rs.7,500/-and Rs.6,400/-respectively. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have been examined in support of the said documents. Further, Ex.P26 and Ex.P27 are the counter-foils for the cheques received by the deceased towards his salary and Ex.P.29 is the certificate of salary. Accepting the aforesaid documents, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/-p.m. It is also not in dispute that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 27 years. The Tribunal has added 50% of the assessed monthly income towards future prospects and considering the deceased to be bachelor, has deducted 50% of the same towards his personal expenses. Applying the multiplier of 17, the Tribunal has assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.18,36,000/-. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs.3,15,000/-towards the conventional heads. 10. In the Judgment relied upon by the counsel for the claimants in RAMRAO LAL BORSE AND ANOTHER supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, dealing with the issue with regard to future prospects, has adopted the principles laid down in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v-PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [ AIR 2017 SC 5157 ].) and the Judgment in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ). The said principles have already been applied in the instant case by the Tribunal. 11. LTD. -v-PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [ AIR 2017 SC 5157 ].) and the Judgment in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ). The said principles have already been applied in the instant case by the Tribunal. 11. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the accident is of the year 2015 and considering the age and qualification of the deceased, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.21,51,000/-together with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of petition till the date of payment is found to be just and reasonable. As such, the same is maintained and the same does not warrant any interference. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.