JUDGMENT : Hemant Chandangoudar, J. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation against the judgment dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K. in MVC No.1583/2016. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 29.07.2016, the deceased Naveen Udaya Kumar was proceeding as a rider in a motorcycle from Kotekar Beeri side towards Thokkottur side. When he reached to a place called near Adka Bhagavathi Bus Stop, Someshwar Village, Mangalore Taluk, a Innova Car bearing Registration No. KL/60- E0799, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. 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 52 years at the time of accident and was working as a Swimming Coach (Master) at Prestige School, Jappinamogaru, Mangaluru and at Jai Hind Swimming Club, Mangaluru and was earning a sum of Rs.24,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that the accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the Innova car by its driver. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- along with interest. 4. The Insurance Company filed written statement, in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. 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. The Insurance Company also denied that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 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.P18. The respondents examined Sri P Narasimha Prabhu, Deputy Manager of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and got exhibited documents namely Exs.R1 to R3. 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.P18. The respondents examined Sri P Narasimha Prabhu, Deputy Manager of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and got exhibited documents namely Exs.R1 to R3. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending Innova car. 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.7,30,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.9,500/- per month and in any case, the same ought to have been taken at Rs.24,000/- per month as per Exs.P13, 14 and 15. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not making an addition to the tune of 25% 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. He further submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation since no credible evidence is placed before the Tribunal by the Insurance Company so as to substantiate its claim that the owner of the offending Innova Car did not have valid permit to ply the vehicle in question as on the date of accident. 7. The 2nd respondent – Insurance Company though served with notice has remained unrepresented. 8. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the offending vehicle was not having valid permit to ply the vehicle as on the date of accident. 7. The 2nd respondent – Insurance Company though served with notice has remained unrepresented. 8. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the offending vehicle was not having valid permit to ply the vehicle as on the date of accident. Hence, fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle requires to be set aside. 9. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 10. The question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is with regard to the liability fastened on the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation and also the quantum of compensation. 11. Admittedly the offending Innova car which was registered as Tourist vehicle was issued with valid permit from 7.7.2012 to 6.7.2017. The Insurance Company has not taken a defence that the offending Innova car was not having valid permit to ply as a tourist vehicle as on the date of accident. However, the Insurance Company got examined RW1 Sri Narasimha Prabhu and got exhibited Ex.R1 i.e. letter issued by the Joint Transport Commissioner to contend that the offending Innova car was not having valid permit to ply as on the date of accident. The Tribunal by considering Ex.R2 held that there was no permit as on the date of accident to ply the vehicle and the same amounts to fundamental breach of policy conditions. The Apex Court in the case of AMRIT PAUL SINGH AND ANR. – VS- TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., AND ORS. reported in 2018 SAR (Civil) 768. AMRIT PAUL SINGH (supra) has held that the use of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. In the present case, though the Insurance Company has not taken a defence that the offending vehicle was not having valid permit, however, has produced Ex.R1 to substantiate the claim that the offending vehicle was not having valid permit. The author of Ex.R1 is not examined by the Insurance Company so as to prove the genuineness of the said document when the claimants have disputed the genuineness of the said document during the cross-examination of RW1. The author of Ex.R1 is not examined by the Insurance Company so as to prove the genuineness of the said document when the claimants have disputed the genuineness of the said document during the cross-examination of RW1. The Insurance Company having not taken the defence in its written statement and also having not examined the author of Ex.R1, the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the offending vehicle was not having valid permit as on the date of accident. Hence, it is held that the Insurance Company cannot absolve of its liability to pay the compensation and fastening the liability on the owner is set aside. 12. The claimants to substantiate their claim that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.24,000/- per month as Swimming Coach have produced salary certificate at Exs.P13, 14 and 16. PW4 – Vishwanatha M was authorized by the Prestige International School to produce Ex.P13 and give evidence on behalf of the School. Perusal of Ex.P13 indicates that the gross salary of Rs.18,000/- was paid by the Prestige International School to the deceased who worked as Swimming Coach from 20.6.2016 to 28.7.2016. Perusal of Ex.P14 indicates that the deceased was paid consolidated salary of Rs.6,000/- per month by Jai Hind Swimming Club to the deceased, who worked as Assistant Swimming Coach for three years. Ex.P16 is the certificate dated 2.3.2015 issued by the Karnataka Swimming Association (Regd.) certifying that the deceased had participated in the “Short Course on Learn to Swim and Water Safety (Level – 1) conducted by Karnataka Swimming Association and Manipal University. Perusal of Ex.P16 indicates that the deceased was a certified swimming coach. 13. It is evident from the evidence of PW3 – Ramakrishna Rao, Secretary of Jai Hind Swimming Club that the deceased worked as Assistant Swimming Coach for three years prior to his death and he was paid consolidated salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. The evidence of PW4 who deposed on behalf of Prestige International School also establishes that the deceased worked as Swimming Coach and he was paid salary of Rs.17,800/- per month after deducting Rs.200/- towards professional fee. The evidence of PW4 who deposed on behalf of Prestige International School also establishes that the deceased worked as Swimming Coach and he was paid salary of Rs.17,800/- per month after deducting Rs.200/- towards professional fee. The entries in Ex.P12 i.e. bank pass book issued by Corporation Bank would indicate that on 4.7.2016, a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards salary for the month June, 2016 was deposited by the Jai Hind Swimming Club to the bank account of the deceased and on 8.8.2016 a sum of Rs.17,800/- towards salary was deposited by the Prestige International School i.e. after the death . Nothing is elicited in the cross examination of PWs.3 and 4 to disbelieve the claim of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.24,000/- per month as Swimming Coach. However, the Tribunal holding that the deceased was not the permanent employee but worked on temporary basis assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month considering the daily wages of Rs.249/- paid to the unskilled labour under Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The deceased was a Swimming Coach at Prestige International School from 26.2.2016 to 28.7.2016, which indicates that the deceased was hired as Swimming Coach on temporary basis. Hence, considering the evidence on record and also the deceased was a Swimming Coach by avocation, it would be appropriate to assessed the monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. 14. It is not in dispute that the deceased at the time of accident was aged about 52 years and was a Swimming Coach by avocation. 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 , 25% of the assessed income has to be added on account of future prospects. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.18,750/-. Since, the number of dependents are two, therefore, 1/3rd of the amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.16,50,000/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 52 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of ‘11’ has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to (Rs.15,000/- x 1/3 x 11 x 12 x 25%) i.e., Rs.16,50,000/- on account of loss of dependency. 15. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to (Rs.15,000/- x 1/3 x 11 x 12 x 25%) i.e., Rs.16,50,000/- on account of loss of dependency. 15. In view of the law 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.’ IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2705/2020 DECIDED ON 30.06.2020 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.17,60,000/-. Since the accident is of the year 2016, the prevailing rate of interest for the year 2016 in respect of fixed deposits for one year in nationalized banks being 6%, the aforesaid amounts of compensation 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 2nd respondent - Insurance Company is fastened with the liability to pay the compensation amount of Rs.17,60,000/- awarded to the claimants. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.