JUDGMENT : S. Sujatha, J. 1. The insurer has filed this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) challenging the judgment and award dated 10.09.2015 passed in MVC No. 2098/2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-11) ('Tribunal' for short). 2. The facts in brief are that the claimants being the parents and brother of the deceased - K.S. Yogesh preferred the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of deceased -K.S. Yogesh in the road traffic accident. It was averred in the claim petition that on 16.01.2014 at about 6.45 a.m., while the deceased - K.S. Yogesh was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-51-EE-6328 on service road of Hosur Main Road, near Veerasandra Gate, the driver of Indica car bearing registration No. KA-53-A-3792 (offending vehicle) dashed the said motorcycle of the deceased due to rash and negligent driving. On account of the said impact, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, he was shifted to Blossom Hospital for treatment. Despite the treatment given, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the same day at about 11.30 p.m. in the said hospital. 3. It was contended that the deceased was the only earning member of the family. He was aged about 28 years and working as a Computer Operator at G.E. Company at Electronic City, Bengaluru; drawing the salary of Rs. 17,582/- per month and contributing the entire amount to the family maintenance. The untimely death of the deceased has caused great hardship and misery to the family. The accident having occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the claimants are entitled to compensation. 4. On service of notice, the appellant - insurance company appeared and contested the matter admitting the liability of the insurer subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and provisions of the Act as well as valid and effective driving licence, valid registration certificate, fitness certificate and permit subject to confirmation of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act. On service of notice, the appellant - insurance company appeared and contested the matter admitting the liability of the insurer subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and provisions of the Act as well as valid and effective driving licence, valid registration certificate, fitness certificate and permit subject to confirmation of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased; the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding the valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and he was not qualified to hold or obtain the driving licence. Though the owner of the vehicle was served, he remained absent and was placed ex-parte. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and answered awarding total compensation of Rs. 32,92,688/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 6. Being aggrieved, the insurer has preferred this appeal insofar as the quantum of compensation awarded as excessive. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant - insurer mainly argued that the deceased - K.S. Yogesh was drawing salary of Rs. 17,582/- per month as per Ex. P12 - Salary Certificate. In the cross-examination of PW 3, the employer has admitted that the deceased - K.S. Yogesh was receiving the salary of more than Rs. 15,000/- and he was not covered under the ESI Act. Ignoring the Salary Certificate at Ex. P12 and pay-slips for the months of October and November 2013 - Exs. P13 and P14, solely considering Ex. P15 - pay-slip for the month of December, 2013 where overtime allowance of Rs. 3,516/- was earned by the deceased, the Tribunal determined the monthly gross salary at Rs. 21,097/-. He further submits that the addition of 50% towards future prospects is not in accordance with law. Accordingly, learned Counsel sought for the reduction of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants justifying the impugned judgment and award submitted that the Tribunal has rightly determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 21,097/- to reckon the loss of dependency based on the last drawn salary for the month of December, 2033 and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 9. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants justifying the impugned judgment and award submitted that the Tribunal has rightly determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 21,097/- to reckon the loss of dependency based on the last drawn salary for the month of December, 2033 and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 9. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the original records. 10. The sole point that arises for our consideration is "Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case?" 11. The factum of accident and the coverage of the insurance policy to the offending vehicle are not in dispute. The only dispute is relating to the determination of the monthly income of the deceased to compute the loss of dependency. As could be seen from Ex. P12, the salary certificate placed on record by the claimants, the monthly salary of the deceased is shown as Rs. 17,582/- i.e., the same as per the pay slips for the months of October and November, 2013. However, for the month of December, 2013, overtime allowance of Rs. 3,516/- is added whereby the gross pay is shown as Rs. 21,097/-. PW 1 in her cross-examination has denied the suggestion that the deceased - son was not working as computer operator and he was not earning Rs. 17,582/- per month. She has relied on Ex. P12 - Salary Certificate and accordingly PW 3, the employer was examined who has deposed that the deceased was getting salary of more than Rs. 15,000/- per month. The Salary Certificate Ex. P12 though dated 11.06.2015 issued by the employer, clearly indicates the salary of the deceased as Rs. 17,582/-. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have considered the ocular and documentary evidence to determine the monthly income of the deceased. Further, addition of 50% towards the future prospects also is not in conformity with the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 having regard to the nature of the job. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to consider the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 17,582/- and adding 40% of the income towards future prospects, the total monthly income would work out to Rs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 having regard to the nature of the job. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to consider the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 17,582/- and adding 40% of the income towards future prospects, the total monthly income would work out to Rs. 24,614/-. Applying the multiplier of 17' and deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 25,10,628/- (24,614 x 12 x 17 x 1/2). 12. In terms of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi, supra and New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Somwati and others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 644 , the claimants are entitled to Rs. 80,000/- towards loss of filial consortium (Rs. 40,000/- to each parent); Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed as under : Sl. No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) 1. Loss of dependency Rs.25,10,628/- 2. Loss of final consortium (Rs.40,000/- to each parent) Rs.80,000/- 3. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 4. Towards funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.26,20,628/- Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 26,20,628/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. 14. Hence, the following : ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and reduced to Rs. 26,20,628/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Twenty Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Eight only) as against Rs. 32,92,688/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. (iii) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability, apportionment and disbursement remains intact. (iv) The insurance company shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order. (v) The modified compensation amount shall be apportioned and disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal. (vi) Draw modified award accordingly. (vii) The Registry shall transfer the amount in deposit along with the original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith. (viii) All pending I.As. stand disposed of accordingly.