JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. 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 03.02.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 27.08.2012, the deceased Lakshmankumar was traveling in a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration No.KA-06-F-298 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle' for short). When the offending vehicle reached near Jai Public School, Uruvekere, Tumkur, the same was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the deceased fell down from the offending vehicle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the 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 25 years at the time of accident and was employed as an executive at ANZ Company, Bangalore and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.80,00,000/- along with interest. 4. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation filed written statement, in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. It was pleaded that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the deceased himself. The age, avocation and income of the deceased was also denied and it was pleaded that the claim of the claimants is exorbitant and excessive. 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 himself as PW-1, Mallikarjunaiah (PW2) and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P26. The respondents neither adduced any oral evidence nor any 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. It was further held, that as a result of aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The respondents neither adduced any oral evidence nor any 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. It was further held, that as a result of aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.7,09,200/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.8,900/-per month when Ex.P5 to Ex.P21 Marksheets of the deceased as well as Ex.P24 Appointment Letter clearly indicate that the deceased had the potential to earn Rs.1,00,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in not making an addition to the tune of 40% to the income of the deceased on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS’ AIR 2017 SC 5157 . It is further submitted that the sums awarded under the heads ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘funeral expenses’ are on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that no evidence has been adduced by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased before the Tribunal and that the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.8,900/- per month. It is further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was 25 years old at the time of the accident and was employed as an executive at ANZ Company, Bangalore and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was 25 years old at the time of the accident and was employed as an executive at ANZ Company, Bangalore and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Ex.P5 to Ex.P21 are the mark sheets issued to the deceased for the various educational courses undertaken by him, which do not constitute proof of income. It is evident that except for Ex.P24 Appointment Letter, the claimants have not adduced any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased at the time of accident. The submission of the learned counsel for the claimants that the income of the deceased has to be assessed at Rs.1,00,000/-per month cannot be accepted, as the same is contrary to the pleadings as well as the evidence on record. The Tribunal, on meticulous appreciation of all evidence on record has assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.8,900 per month, on the basis of Ex.P24 Appointment Letter which has been adduced by the claimants. Therefore, no interference can be made in this regard as the same is just and reasonable. 8. 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 monthly income comes to Rs.12,460/-. Since, the deceased is a bachelor, therefore, half of the amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.6,230/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 24 years 3 months at the time of accident, the multiplier of ‘18’ has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to (Rs.8,438x12x18) i.e., Rs.13,45,680/-on account of loss of dependency. 9. 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 claimant’s are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/-on account of loss of consortium and loss love and affection. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.80,000/-. LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR AND ORS.’ AIR 2020 SC 3076 each of the claimant’s are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/-on account of loss of consortium and loss 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.14,55,680/-. Needless to state that the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the payment is made. However, it is made clear that the claimants are not entitled to interest for a period of 1359 days on account of delay caused in filing the instant appeal. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.