JUDGMENT : M.G.S. Kamal, J. 1. The appeal u/s 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter it is referred to as “the Act”) is filed by the claimants against the Judgment & Award dated 13.04.2017, passed in MVC No.2168/2016 on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi (hereinafter it is referred to as “the tribunal”). 2. The facts leading upto filing of the present appeal briefly stated are that on 18.08.2016 at about 22.15 hours one Suraj Son of Basavant Malai was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/ED-6495 from Raviwar Peth towards Mujawarkhut, Fort Road, at that time, TATA Motors Tanker bearing registration No.KA19/5372 driven by its driver in a rash & negligent manner while attempting to overtake the motorcycle of the deceased dashed against the deceased. As a result of the same, the deceased fell down and the right side rear wheel of the said tanker ran on the head of the deceased resulting in grievous injuries on the vital parts of the body of the accused and he succumbed to the same on the spot. 3. Thereupon the claimants being the wife, children & parents of the deceased filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation in a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- contending inter alia that the deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of accident, was working as a Salesman in Jai Ganesh Cloth Center and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month; that the deceased was the sole bread earner in the family and the untimely death of the deceased on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver has caused emotional and financial distress to the claimants. Hence, sought for compensation. 4. Upon service of notice, respondent Nos.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel; respondent No.1 filed statement of objections denying the petition averments and also denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is contended that the accident occurred solely on account of the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased himself. It is further contended that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and in the event of the Tribunal fixing the liability, the same be imposed on respondent No.2 – Insurer. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition 5. It is further contended that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and in the event of the Tribunal fixing the liability, the same be imposed on respondent No.2 – Insurer. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition 5. Respondent No.2 filed statement of objection denying the contents of the petition including the manner, mode, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the same as on the date of accident. As such there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, to which the Insurance Company was not laible to indemnify the liability. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. The Tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and recorded the evidence; claimant No.1, wife of the deceased examined herself as PW1 and got marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15; on behalf of the respondents, one Herat Rasiklal Shah, Official of respondent No.2 was examined as RW1 and marked 7 documents as Exs.R1 to R7. 7. The Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties held that the death of the deceased was on account of the accident which was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driven by its driver. It is further held that the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.13,21,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization; the Tribunal further held that there was no violation of terms of the policy on the part of respondent No.1 and thus, directed respondent No.2 Insurance Company to deposit the awarded compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon within a period of two months from the date of the order. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the claimants are before this Court by way of this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the claimants are before this Court by way of this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal submitted that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- p.m. despite his income being Rs.15,000/- per month working as a Salesman in Jai Ganesh Cloth Center; that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects; that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads is on the lower side. Hence, sought for enhancement of the compensation by allowing the appeal. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for Insurance Company-respondent No.2 justifying the Judgment & Award passed by the Tribunal submitted that compensation awarded is just and proper and the same does not warrant any interference. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully. 12. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the issue that would arise for our consideration in this appeal is as under: “Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and whether the claimants have made out grounds for enhancement of compensation?” 13. The death of the deceased due to road traffic accident involving motorcycle and the TATA Motors Tanker is not in dispute. The Tribunal relying upon the material evidence namely FIR, Complaint, Spot panchanama, Motorcycle seizer panchanama, MVI report, PM report, FSL report and Charge sheet produced at Exs.P1 to P8 has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving the offending vehicle by its driver and the same do not warrant any interference. Though it is contended on behalf of the claimants that the deceased was working as a Salesman in Jai Ganesh Cloth Center and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, the claimants have not furnished any acceptable material evidence justifying the said claim. In the absence of production of evidence, the Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month. In the absence of production of evidence, the Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month. This Court while assessing the notional income in respect of the victims not having any documentary evidence with regard to their income takes into consideration the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, according to which in respect of the accident occurred during the year 2016, the notional income as per the chart would be Rs.8,750/-. In the instant case the accident has occurred on 18.08.2016, as such the notional income of the deceased is taken at Rs.8,750/- per month. 14. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prosecutes. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , since the deceased is aged about 28 years, which is below 40 years of age, 40% of the notional income needs to be added towards future prospects. Thus, monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.12,250/- (Rs.8,750/- + 40%). 15. The Tribunal has rightly deducted an amount equivalent to 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Since the age of the deceased was 28 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable would be 17. Hence, loss of dependency would be Rs.18,74,250/- (Rs.12,250/- x 12 x 17 x 3/4) 16. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. NANU RAM @ CHUHRU RAM reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and which was later clarified in SATINDER KAUR @ SATWINDER KAUR VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 , each of the claimants namely wife, two children and parents would be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and loss of love & affection. In addition, the claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to the total compensation of Rs.21,04,250/- under the following heads: S. No. Heads of account Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court. 1. Loss of dependency Rs.10,71,000/- Rs.18,74,250/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.40,000/- 3. Loss of love & affection Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,60,000/- 4. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to the total compensation of Rs.21,04,250/- under the following heads: S. No. Heads of account Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court. 1. Loss of dependency Rs.10,71,000/- Rs.18,74,250/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.40,000/- 3. Loss of love & affection Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,60,000/- 4. Towards funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- 5. Loss of estate Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.13,21,000/- Rs.21,04,250/- 17. In view of the above, we pass the following : ORDER : (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The Judgment & Award dated 13.04.2017, passed in MVC No.2168/2016 on the file of the VIII-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi is hereby modified. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.21,04,250/- instead of Rs.13,21,000/-. The enhanced compensation of Rs.7,83,250 shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. (iii) The order of apportionment and deposit ordered by the Tribunal shall hold good for the compensation awarded in this appeal.