JUDGMENT Shankar Ganapathi Pandit, J. - Though this appeal as well as cross objection are listed for admission, they are taken up for final disposal, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties. 2. The insurer-New India Assurance Company is in appeal in MFA No. 100226/2019 challenging the liability as well as quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants, whereas the claimants are in cross objection in MFA Crob No. 100056/2019 praying for enhancement of compensation, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under judgment and award dated 20.09.2018 passed in MVC No. 1269/2016 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Bailhongal (for short, 'Tribunal'). 3. The claimants, who are the wife, children & parents of the deceased Iranagouda M Patil, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the accidental death of deceased Iranagouda M Patil that took place on 03.01.2016 involving Tractor bearing registration No. KA-24/TA-6272 and TATA Tipper vehicle bearing registration No. GA-09/U-2513. It is stated that the deceased was aged 34 years as on the date of the accident and earning Rs. 20 lakhs per annum by doing agricultural work; earning not less than Rs. 8,00,000/- per annum by doing sugarcane transport business and also earning Rs. 2,00,000/- by giving the Tractor on hire for carrying out agricultural operations. 4. On issuance of notice, respondent No. 1-owner of Tata Tipper vehicle and Respondent No. 2-New India Assurance Company Limited appeared through their respective counsel. Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company filed its statement of objections inter-alia contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased who was driving the tractor in question. It is also contended that the driver of Tata Tipper was not at all involved in the alleged accident and in the complaint initially filed would not indicate number and type of the vehicle involved. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Before the Tribunal, claimants examined PW1 and PW2 apart from marking the documents as Exs. P1 to P93. No witness was examined on behalf of the respondents but Exs. R1 to R4 were marked. The Tribunal on appreciation of the material evidence on record awarded a total compensation of Rs. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Before the Tribunal, claimants examined PW1 and PW2 apart from marking the documents as Exs. P1 to P93. No witness was examined on behalf of the respondents but Exs. R1 to R4 were marked. The Tribunal on appreciation of the material evidence on record awarded a total compensation of Rs. 29,07,654/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit on the following heads: Loss of dependency Rs.27,64,272/- Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- Loss of love & affection Rs. 50,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Transportation & funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 23,382/- Total Rs.29,07,654/- 6. While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,30,355/- per annum, applied multiplier of 16 as the deceased was aged 34 years and deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. 7. Heard Sri. G.N. Raichur, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and Sri. Hanamant R Latur, learned counsel for the cross-objectors-claimants and perused the appeal papers along with original records. 8. Sri. G.N. Raichur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-New India Assurance Company in support of his appeal would contend that the accident occurred due to sole negligent driving of the tractor by the deceased. Learned counsel referring to Ex. P5-Sketch would submit that the accident had taken place in the middle of the road and the deceased driver of the tractor was driving the vehicle on the middle of the road, which resulted in tipper lorry dashing the tractor from behind. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the tractor suddenly came to the middle of the road and as such, driver of the tripper had no option and even though he applied brake, dashed to the tractor. 9. With regard to quantum of compensation, learned counsel Sri. G.N. Raichur, would submit that the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 2,30,000/- per annum is on the higher side. It is submitted that the Tribunal could not have taken agricultural income of the deceased at Rs. 84,000/- and Rs. 1,46,355/- per annum from transportation of sugarcane. He submits that notional income of Rs. 8,750/- per month is prescribed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the accidental claim of the year 2016. It is submitted that the Tribunal could not have taken agricultural income of the deceased at Rs. 84,000/- and Rs. 1,46,355/- per annum from transportation of sugarcane. He submits that notional income of Rs. 8,750/- per month is prescribed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the accidental claim of the year 2016. It is also his submission that the tractor could not have been used for transport of sugarcane of other farmers, since it was not having 'Permit' as Transport vehicle. Thus, he prays for revision of the income assessed by the Tribunal on the lower side. 10. Per contra, Sri. Hanamant R Latur, learned counsel for the cross-objectors/claimants in support of his cross objection would submit that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred solely due to negligent on the part of the driver of the tipper. He would submit that the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of Tata Tipper in question. Referring to Ex. P5-Sketch, learned counsel would submit that the deceased was driving on the left side of the road and driver of the tipper came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the hind side of the tractor. He would submit that the road width was 38 ft and tipper had space of 26 ft on the right side. Thus, he submits that the driver of the tipper could have avoided the accident, but wholly due to rash and negligent driving of the tipper by its driver, accident took place. 11. With regard to quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the cross-objectors would submit that the Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,30,000/- per annum. He further submits that apart from transporting sugarcane grown by the deceased, the deceased was transporting sugarcane of other farmers, thereby he was earning from usage of his tractor. It is also his submission that the deceased was having 4 acres 3 guntas of land and therefore, supervisory charges of Rs. 84,000/- per annum taken by the Tribunal is proper and correct. He would also submit that the Tribunal failed to award compensation on the head of future prospects, which the claimants would be entitled to add 40% of the assessed income, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 2017 (16) SCC 680 . He would also submit that the Tribunal failed to award compensation on the head of future prospects, which the claimants would be entitled to add 40% of the assessed income, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 2017 (16) SCC 680 . Learned counsel would further submit that the claimants being wife, three children and parents of the deceased would be entitled to Rs. 40,000/- each towards spousal, parental and filial consortium as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram & Others 2018 ACJ 2782 . Thus, he prays for enhancement of compensation. 12. On hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers along with original records, the following points would arise for our consideration: a) Whether the Tribunal is justified in saddling the liability jointly and severally on respondent No. 1 and 2? b) Whether the claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation? 13. Our answer to the above points is in the affirmative and negative respectively for the following reasons: 14. The occurrence of the accident on 03.01.2016 involving Tractor bearing registration No. KA-24/TA-6272 and TATA Tipper vehicle bearing registration No. GA-09/U-2513 resultant death of the deceased Iranagouda M Patil is not in dispute. The insurance company has contended that the accident took place solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor i.e. deceased. A perusal of Ex. P5-Sketch of the accident spot would reveal that the accident had taken place while tractor in question was moving from Belgaum to Dharwad. Tipper was also coming from Dharwad to Belgaum and tipper dashed to the hind side of the tractor which resulted in toppling of the tractor, resultant death of the deceased Iranagouda M Patil. The accident had taken place on the left side of the road. The road width is 38 feet. It is clear from Ex. P5-Sketch that on the right side of the road, there is 26 feet space and left side 12 feet space. The accident has not taken place in the middle of the road but it has taken place on the left side of the road. The road width is 38 feet. It is clear from Ex. P5-Sketch that on the right side of the road, there is 26 feet space and left side 12 feet space. The accident has not taken place in the middle of the road but it has taken place on the left side of the road. There was sufficient space for tipper lorry to pass on the right side of the highway and there was no occasion to the driver of the tipper lorry to dash the tractor from behind. From documents Ex. P1-Complaint, Ex. P3 & P5-Panchanama, it is clear that the accident had taken place due to negligent driving of the driver of Tata tipper lorry in question. Moreover, charge sheet is filed against the driver of the Tata Tipper. Respondents have not examined driver of the tipper to prove their contention that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the deceased. Thus, we do not find any error in the finding arrived at by the Tribunal with regard to saddling of liability jointly and severally on respondents No. 1 and 2. 15. As regards the quantum of compensation, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 2,30,000/- per annum is erroneous and not proper. Ex. P54 is the Certificate issued by Malaprabha Co-Op Sugar Factory dated 31.12.2007, wherein it is stated that the deceased was 'A' category member and he had purchased 4 shares at face value of Rs. 5,000/- each. Ex. P55 & P56 are receipts for having transported sugarcane to sugar factory. It would not indicate tractor number i.e. KA-25/TA-6272. Some of entries would only show as 'Tractor' but some of entries would show tractor number as KA-24/TA-6273. It is not clear as to whether sugarcane was supplied by using tractor of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that for the year 2014-15 & 2015-16 the deceased was earning Rs. 2,92,711/- per annum by transporting sugarcane. No acceptable material or document is placed on record to assess exact income of the deceased. In the absence of valid and acceptable document, income of the deceased will have to be assessed notionally. This Court and Lok Adalath while settling the claims arising from motor vehicle accidents of the year 2016, normally would assess notional income of the deceased notionally at Rs. In the absence of valid and acceptable document, income of the deceased will have to be assessed notionally. This Court and Lok Adalath while settling the claims arising from motor vehicle accidents of the year 2016, normally would assess notional income of the deceased notionally at Rs. 8,750/- per month, taking note of the chart prepared by KSLSA based on various factors including the minimum wage fixed. In the instant case also, in the absence of any material evidence to establish the income of the deceased, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate for us to determine the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,750/- p.m. taking note of the income chart prepared by KSLSA. In addition, as the deceased was owning 4 acres 3 guntas of land, supervisory charges could be added to his notional income. Taking note of extent of land owned by the deceased, we deem it appropriate to add Rs. 4,000/- per month as supervisory charges to notional income of the deceased assessed at Rs. 8,750/- per month. Thus, we deem it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 12,750/- per month. 16. The Tribunal failed to award compensation on the head of future prospects. The deceased was aged 34 years and in terms of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled to addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. Multiplier of 16' applied by the Tribunal and deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased is proper and correct which needs no interference. Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled for compensation on the head of loss of dependency at Rs. 25,70,400/- (Rs. 12,750 + 40/100 x 12 x 16 x 3/4). 17. Further, 1st claimant being wife of the deceased is entitled for Rs. 40,000/- towards spousal consortium, whereas claimants 2 to 4 being children of the deceased would be entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards parental consortium and claimants No. 5 & 6-parents of the deceased would be entitled to Rs. 40,000/- each towards filial consortium as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation of dead body, which in our view is just and proper. 40,000/- each towards filial consortium as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation of dead body, which in our view is just and proper. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for modified compensation on the following heads: Sl.No. Particulars Amount 1. Loss of dependency (Rs.12,750 + 40/100 = Rs.17,850 – Rs.4,462.5 (1/4th) = Rs.13,387.5 x 12 x 16 (multiplier)) = Rs.25,70,400/- Rs.25,70,400/- 2. Loss of estate & Funeral expenses & transportation of dead body Rs. 30,000/- 3. Spousal, Parental & Filial Consortium (Rs.40,000/- each to claimants 1 to 6) Rs. 2,40,000/- 4. Medical expenses Rs. 23,382/- Total Rs.28,63,782/- 18. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 28,63,782/- as against Rs. 29,07,654/- awarded by the Tribunal. 19. The Tribunal while awarding compensation granted rate of interest at 9% per annum. Taking note of the present rate of Bank interest, we are inclined to reduce the rate of interest on the compensation amount from 9% awarded by the Tribunal to 6% per annum. 20. Hence, we pass the following: ORDER a) Appeal as well as cross objection are allowed in part. b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 28,63,782/- as against Rs. 29,07,654/- awarded by the Tribunal. c) The entire compensation amount will bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of realization. d) The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith along with original records. e) Excess amount, if any, be refunded to the appellant-insurance company forthwith. f) The apportionment, deposit and disbursement shall be made as per the award of the Tribunal. g) Draw modified award accordingly. h) No order as to costs.