JUDGMENT 1. Challenging judgment and award dtd. 30/1/2012 passed by III Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Kolar in MVC No.166/2009, this appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. 2. The facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 5/7/2009, while returning from Chinnasandra Village, Narayanaswamy was standing in bus stand at Kaddappa. At that time, a scooty bearing registration No.KA-40-K-8942 came from Chintamani side, ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to him. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries. He was initially admitted to Chitamani Government Hospital and thereafter shifted to NIMHANS, Bengaluru. However, due to gravity of injuries, he died. Alleging loss of dependency, due to his untimely death, his wife, three children and father filed claim petition against owner and insurer of offending vehicle under Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000.00. 3. On service of notice, only respondent no.2- insurer filed objections admitting issuing insurance policy to offending vehicle and coverage at time of accident. It however alleged violation of policy conditions so far as possession of effective and valid driving licence and contended that accident was not due to rash and negligent riding of offending vehicle. Claim petition was also opposed as being excessive. 4. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed following points: 1. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Narayanaswamy died in the road traffic accident occurred on 5/7/2009 near Munavara Hotel at Chinnasandra, due to rash and negligent driving of the TVS Scooty bearing registration No.KA-40-K8942 by its rider? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation, if so, from whom and how much? 3. What award? 5. Thereafter, claimant no.1 examined herself as PW-1 and got marked documents Ex.P-1 to P-9. On behalf of respondents, no evidence was laid. 6. On consideration, Tribunal answered point no.1 in affirmative, point no.2 partly in affirmative and allowed claim petition in part granting compensation of Rs.5,87,000.00 and directing respondent no.2-Insurer liable to pay same with 6% p.a. Not being satisfied with quantum of compensation, claimants are in appeal. 7. Miss Nazeefa M. Mulla, learned counsel for appellant submitted that impugned award passed by Tribunal was not commensurate to facts of case and evidence on record. It was submitted that deceased was 45 years of age as on date of accident and was earning Rs.20,000.00 per month from agriculture and milk vending. 7. Miss Nazeefa M. Mulla, learned counsel for appellant submitted that impugned award passed by Tribunal was not commensurate to facts of case and evidence on record. It was submitted that deceased was 45 years of age as on date of accident and was earning Rs.20,000.00 per month from agriculture and milk vending. However, Tribunal considered his income at a meager sum of Rs.4,500.00 per month. Tribunal however erred in not adding future prospects while assessing loss of dependency. Even compensation awarded under conventional heads was not in terms of decision rendered by constitution bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 16 SCC 680 and sought for enhancement. 8. On other hand, learned counsel for respondentInsurer sought to support award and opposed enhancement of compensation. 9. From above submission, it is seen that Tribunal on consideration of FIR, Charge sheet, Mahazar, Sketch and IMV report marked as Ex.P-1 to P-4 and P-7, arrived at conclusion that accident was due to rash and negligent riding of offending TVS Scooty by its rider and as it was insured by respondent No.2-Insurer, it assessed compensation and held Insurer liable to pay the same. Insurer has not filed any appeal against award. Only claimant is in appeal seeking enhancement. Therefore, sole point that arises for consideration: "whether claimants are entitled for compensation as sought for". 10. In order to substantiate income, claimant produced records of rights at Ex.P-9. However, no specific evidence is led to establish income earned was Rs.20,000.00 per month. 11. Under these circumstances, Tribunal was justified in assessing monthly income notionally. However, notional income for period 2009 is Rs.5,000.00 per month. Therefore, Tribunal would not be justified in taking Rs.4,500.00 as monthly income and Rs.5,000.00 has to be taken instead. Claimants are the wife, three children and father. Deceased was 45 years of age and self employed. Therefore, as per decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), 25% of income has to be added towards future prospects and 1/4th of it deducted towards personal expenses. Multiplier applicable would be 14'. Hence, loss of dependency would be: Rs.5,000.00 + 25% - 1/4 x 12 x 14 = Rs.7,87,500.00 12. As per decision in Magma General Insurance Co. Therefore, as per decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), 25% of income has to be added towards future prospects and 1/4th of it deducted towards personal expenses. Multiplier applicable would be 14'. Hence, loss of dependency would be: Rs.5,000.00 + 25% - 1/4 x 12 x 14 = Rs.7,87,500.00 12. As per decision in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Nanu Ram reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 , claimant no.1 wife would be entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000.00 towards 'loss of spousal consortium', claimant nos.2, 3 and 4 Rs.40,000.00 each towards 'loss of parental consortium' and claimant no.5 -father Rs.40,000.00 towards 'loss of filial consortium'. Therefore, compensation of Rs.2,00,000.00 in total is awarded towards head 'loss of consortium' to claimants. They would also be entitled to Rs.15,000.00 towards 'loss of funeral expenses', Rs.15,000.00 towards 'loss of estate' and since more than three years have lapsed after rendering of decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), there has to be addition of 10% to award under conventional heads i.e., Rs.2,30,000.00 + 10% = Rs.2,53,000.00. 13. Thus, claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.7,87,500.00 + Rs.2,53,000.00 = Rs.10,40,500.00. 14. In view of above, point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative. In the result, I pass following: ORDER i) Appeal is allowed in part with costs. ii) Compensation is reassessed at Rs.10,40,500.00 as against Rs.5,87,000.00 granted by Tribunal. Same shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from date of claim petition till deposit. iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit enhanced compensation within a period of six weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of this order. iv) Enhanced compensation to be distributed between claimant nos.1 to 4 equally. v) 50% of compensation is directed to be kept in fixed deposit and remaining to be released to claimants.