JUDGMENT : V. Srishananda, J. 1. Though these matters are listed for admission today, with the consent of both the parties, the matters are taken up for final disposal. 2. The Appeal and the MFA CROB are arising out of impugned judgment and award dtd. 29/11/2012 passed in MVC No. 171/2012, on the file of the Fast Track at Athani. 3. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the Appeal and MFA CROB are as under: A claim petition came to be filed under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that on 1/9/2011 at about 7.30 p.m., when the deceased Sunil Mahaveer Langoti along with her sister Sunita were proceeding as pedestrians on Siddewadi-Kavalgudd Road near kannada School, Siddewadi, a Mahindra Tractor bearing No. KA23/TB-1571 came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against Sunil Mahaveer Langoti whereby he sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to the injuries in Dr.Anand Kulkarni Hospital, Athani. The claimants being the mother and sisters having lost their bread winner, laid a claim petition for awarding suitable compensation. 4. The claim petition was resisted by filing necessary written statement. 5. The Tribunal raised appropriate issues and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petition in a sum of Rs.5,76,000.00 as the compensation with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the Insurance Company and claimants are in appeal and cross objection. 6. Sri M.K. Soudagar, learned counsel representing the Insurance Company vehemently contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not posses a valid driving licence and a notice came to be issued by the Insurance Company for the owner of the vehicle to produce the driving licence. Despite the service of notice, the owner failed to produce the driving licence of the driver and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. He further contended that at the most, this Court may order for payment of the adjudged compensation by the Insurance Company at the first instance and thereafter, the Insurance Company be permitted to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle in the very same proceedings. Further, he contended that quantum of compensation is on the higher side and sought for re-computation of the quantum of compensation. 7. Further, he contended that quantum of compensation is on the higher side and sought for re-computation of the quantum of compensation. 7. Per contra, Smt. Archana A. Magadum, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 while supporting the finding of the Tribunal to pay the adjudged compensation by Insurance Company and sought for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the Tribunal has not taken the proper income and did not add future prospects and did not allow the filial affection and sought for enhancement of compensation. 8. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the following points that would arise for consideration is: "1. Whether the Insurance Company has made out a case for exoneration of its liability or a direction to pay adjudged compensation and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle? 2. Whether the cross objectors have made out a case for enhancement of compensation?" 9. In the case on hand, the accidental death of Sunil Mahaveer Langoti on 1/9/2011 at about 7.30 p.m. on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of Mahindra tractor bearing No. KA-23/TB-1571 stands established by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record. No doubt the Insurance Company has issued notice to the owner of the vehicle to produce driving licence of the driver. The said notice though served, the owner did not comply with the calling of the notice. Therefore, the Insurance Company is now seeking exoneration of its liability on the ground that there was no driving licence to the driver the offending vehicle. Mere issuance of notice or witness summons itself would not be suffice to say that the Insurance Company has discharged its burden in getting the fact established that the driver of the offending vehicle did not posses the driving licence. If the witness does not respond to the summons issued under order XVI of CPC, the Insurance Company is required to take coercive steps as is contemplated under Order XVI Rules 10 and 12 of CPC. No such efforts are made by the Insurance Company in the case on hand. If the witness does not respond to the summons issued under order XVI of CPC, the Insurance Company is required to take coercive steps as is contemplated under Order XVI Rules 10 and 12 of CPC. No such efforts are made by the Insurance Company in the case on hand. Therefore, the argument put forth on behalf of the Insurance Company that issuance of notice and non reply should result in drawing an adverse inference against the owner of the vehicle that the driver of the vehicle did not posses a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle as on the date of accident. Accordingly, contentions urged on behalf of the Insurance Company cannot be countenanced in law. Accordingly, point No. 1 is answered in negative. 10. In respect of the quantum of compensation is concerned, admittedly, the Tribunal has not properly awarded the compensation while taking note of the settled principles of law. 11. In the absence of proper proof of income, this Court and Lok-Adalats would normally assess the monthly income in a sum of Rs.6,000.00 for the accidental claim of the year 2011. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the claimants would be entitled to addition of 40%. Therefore, the monthly income would be in a sum of Rs.8,400.00. Since, the deceased is a bachelor, 50% is to be deducted. Accordingly, on the head of 'Loss of dependency', the claimants would be entitled to Rs.9,07,200.00 (50% of 8,400/- = Rs.4200.00 x 12 x 18). So also, the claimants are entitled under the conventional heads in a sum of Rs.30,000.00. Further, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur and Others reported in 2020 ACJ 2131 , the claimants would be entitled to Rs.40,000.00 each towards 'Loss of consortium/filial affection' which would amounts to Rs.1,20,000.00. Accordingly, in all, the claimants would be entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.10,57,200.00 as against Rs.5,76,000.00 awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, point No. 2 is answered partly in affirmative and following order is passed: ORDER: 1. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the claimants is allowed in part. 2. Accordingly, in all, the claimants would be entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.10,57,200.00 as against Rs.5,76,000.00 awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, point No. 2 is answered partly in affirmative and following order is passed: ORDER: 1. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the claimants is allowed in part. 2. In modification of the award passed by the tribunal, the claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.10,57,200.00 with 6% interest from the date of petition till its realization excluding interest for the delayed period. 3. Amount in deposit, if any is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith and the balance amount is to be deposited by the insurance company within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 4. Ordered accordingly.