JUDGMENT 1. Challenging judgment and award dtd. 9/10/2018 passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Udupi, this appeal is filed by claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Brief facts as stated are that in an accident that occurred on 11/3/2017, Sri. Roilet Veeraj died when bus bearing registration No.KA-20AA-9909 collided against his motorcycle bearing registration No.GA-05H-9731. Claiming compensation on account of his untimely death, his parents filed claim petition against owner and insurer of bus under Sec. 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988. 3. The claim petition was contested. Tribunal framed issues, recorded evidence and on appreciation of material on record, held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of bus. It further held that driver had valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and as bus was insured with respondent no.2, it was liable to pay compensation. It determined age of deceased as 22 years, occupation as MBA student and taking his notional monthly income at Rs.10,000.00, adding 40% towards future prospects, awarded total compensation of Rs.15,42,000.00 against insurer of bus. Not satisfied with compensation, claimants are in appeal. 4. Ms. Nazeepa M. Mulla, advocate for Sri. Pavan Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for appellants/claimants submitted that award passed by tribunal was inadequate. It was further submitted that tribunal erred in taking monthly income of deceased at Rs.10,000.00, though he was a meritorious student pursuing his MBA in a reputed institution at Mangaluru. It was further submitted that award passed by tribunal under conventional heads was also inadequate and sought enhancement. 5. On the other hand, Shri Ashok N. Patil, learned counsel for respondent-insurer supported award and opposed enhancement. It was further submitted that as on date of accident deceased was a student and not an earning member. As deceased was pursuing his MBA, claimants claim that he was working as accountant and earning income would be cannot be presumed. Therefore, tribunal was justified in taking his income on notional basis, hence prayed for dismissal of appeal. 6. From the above submissions, occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent driving of driver of bus leading to death of Roilet Veeraj is not in dispute. Issuance of insurance policy and its validity as on date of accident is also not in dispute. Tribunal assessed compensation holding respondents no.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the same. From the above submissions, occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent driving of driver of bus leading to death of Roilet Veeraj is not in dispute. Issuance of insurance policy and its validity as on date of accident is also not in dispute. Tribunal assessed compensation holding respondents no.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the same. Insurer has not challenged the same, hence liability of insurer is also not in dispute. Only claimants are in appeal seeking enhancement. Therefore, point that arises for consideration is: "Whether claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?" 7. In order to establish age, occupation and income of deceased, claimants produced medical certificates, merit certificate, caste certificate and certificate issued by college as per Exs.P.2 to P.5 respectively. From date of birth mentioned in Ex.P.2 - SSLC marks card, age of deceased is determined as 24 years. The mark sheets of SSLC, PUC, B.Com. disclose his academic accomplishment. He has secured distinction marks in MBA course also. Notional income for the year 2017 as adopted by Karnataka Legal Services Committee for settlement of cases before Lok Adalat was Rs.11,000.00 for an ordinary coolie. Deceased being a meritorious student cannot be equated with coolie. Therefore, tribunal was not justified in assessing his monthly income at Rs.10,000.00. It would be appropriate to determine his income at Rs.12,000.00 per month. 8. Though learned counsel for respondent opposed such assessment by relying upon decision of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co., Vs. Muralidhar Surajmal Kabra and Ors. 2019 SCC Online Bom. 1548, wherein it is held that improbability of finding employment have to be borne in mind and income cannot be determined by guess work. In the case on hand, merit of deceased has been substantiated by production of marks card. In fact, if claimants had examined officer from the institution regarding prospects of employment in campus placements and average expected salary, same would have to be taken. But their failure to do so, would not lead to a situation where a meritorious educated student is equated with a coolie. Hence, opposition of insurer against enhancement of monthly income of deceased is without substance. Deceased was 22 years of age and a bachelor. Claimants are parents. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Hence, opposition of insurer against enhancement of monthly income of deceased is without substance. Deceased was 22 years of age and a bachelor. Claimants are parents. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , 40% of monthly income has to be added towards future prospects and 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses. The proper multiplier applicable would be 18'. Thus, loss of dependency would be: Rs.12,000.00 + 40% - 1/2 X 12 X 18 = Rs.18,14,400.00. 9. Claimants being parents would be entitled to Rs.40,000.00 each towards 'loss of filial consortium'. They would also be entitled to Rs.15,000.00 towards 'funeral expenses' and Rs.15,000.00 towards 'loss of estate'. Since more than 3 years have lapsed after rendering decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), 10% has to be added to award under conventional heads. Thus, total compensation would be Rs.18,14,4000.00 + Rs.1,21,000.00 = Rs.19,35,400.00. Point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative. 10. In the result , I pass following: ORDER Appeal is allowed in part with costs. Claimants are held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.19,35,400.00 as against Rs.15,42,000.00 awarded by tribunal. The same shall carry interest at 6% per annum from date of petition till deposit. Directions issued by tribunal regarding apportionment, deposit and release shall apply to enhanced compensation also. Registry to draw decree as above and transmit trial court records forthwith.