JUDGMENT : Ravikumar D.Y. aged 17 years, died in the year 2013, in a road accident as the KSRTC bus dashed against the Toyota Quails. Ravikumar was the passenger in Toyota Qualis. Parents and the brother of deceased Ravikumar D. Y. sought compensation from KSRTC. It is alleged that the driver of the KSRTC bus was negligent. The finding of negligence against the driver of KSRTC is not questioned. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,40,000.00 as compensation vide impugned judgment and award. 2. Deceased was a student. Tribunal considered Rs.30,000.00 per annum as the notional income of the deceased. ‘16’ is the multiplier chosen based on the mother’s age. According to the tribunal Rs.4,80,000/- is the ‘loss of dependency’. In addition, Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the head of love and affection and Rs.10,000/-towards funeral expenses. In all Rs.5,40,000.00 is awarded. No interest is awarded on the compensation. 3. The claimants are seeking enhancement of compensation by impugning the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru in MVC 4315/2013. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the respondent/Corporation. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of CHETANA V/S. BABUJI M reported in 2021(1) KLJ 249 and also the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in MFA 7690/2017 decided on 02.12.2021. By placing reliance on these two judgments, it is urged that the deceased was aged 17 years in both the cases referred above and they were considered adolescents. The income of the deceased in the cases referred supra was considered based on the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority as if they were the earning members. The learned counsel for the appellants thus urged to apply the same ratio in the present case and to assess the income of the deceased as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent/KSRTC would oppose the claim for enhancement. It is urged that the claimants have not pleaded anything about the income of the deceased. It is pleaded that the deceased was a student studying in 10th standard. Whereas, in the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Courts have awarded compensation on the proof of income of the deceased. It is urged that the claimants have not pleaded anything about the income of the deceased. It is pleaded that the deceased was a student studying in 10th standard. Whereas, in the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Courts have awarded compensation on the proof of income of the deceased. On this premise, it is submitted that the facts of the case on hand do not attract the ratio in the judgments cited and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. This Court has perused the judgments referred above. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, in the aforementioned judgments cited by the appellants, this Court has determined the ‘loss of dependency’ in the case of death of a 17-year-old boy, based on proof of earnings. In the instant case, there is no such pleading and proof relating to the income of the deceased. Thus ratio laid in the aforementioned cases has no application here. 8. As already noticed, the accident and death occurred in the year 2013. The deceased was aged 17 years, studying in 10th standard. The tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. 9. The question that falls for determination is, “Whether a notional income of Rs.30,000/-per annum is a just and fair assessment of the income for a person aged 17 years who died in the year 2013, in the absence of any proof relating to his income?” 10. The answer is ‘No’. Notional income of Rs.30,000.00 per annum is on the lower side. This view can be justified with reference to compensation awarded by the Apex Court in the case of KISHAN GOPAL AND ANOTHER vs LALA AND OTHERS reported in (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 244. In the said case compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded to a boy aged 10 years who died in the accident which occurred in the year 1992. The notional income of the deceased aged 10 years was taken at Rs.30,000.00 per annum. In the instant case too, the Tribunal has taken the same notional income of Rs.30,000.00 per annum, to calculate the ‘loss of dependency’ of a 17-year-old boy who died in the year 2013. In KISHAN GOPAL'S case supra, compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-is awarded for the death which occurred in the year 1992. In the instant case too, the Tribunal has taken the same notional income of Rs.30,000.00 per annum, to calculate the ‘loss of dependency’ of a 17-year-old boy who died in the year 2013. In KISHAN GOPAL'S case supra, compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-is awarded for the death which occurred in the year 1992. To put it simply, the compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs awarded in Kishan Gopal’s case supra is the compensation determined taking into account the value of the rupee in the year 1992. In this for the death that occurred in 2013, Rs.5,40,000.00 is awarded. The fallacy is apparent. 11. The value of the rupee in 1992 was far more than the value of the rupee in 2013. Since then there is a steady erosion in the value of the rupee. Consequently, the cost of living has gone up. Wages have also witnessed upward revision. None can deny these facts. The logical corollary is that the ‘notional income’ to be determined to assess the compensation for the death that occurred in the year 2013, should also be more than the notional income fixed in the year 1992. Precisely for this reason, the Court has to take into account the cost of living, inflation and erosion in the value of the rupee and consequent revision in wages while determining the compensation payable under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. If compensation is assessed based on notional income prevailed in the year 1992, relating to the death of a 17-year-old boy, who died in the year 2013, without factoring in the erosion in the value of the rupee and the consequent escalation in wages, the same would result in grave injustice. 12. While deciding the cases relating to compensation payable, the Courts and the Tribunals need to be alive to the changing situations. If the compensation is assessed by taking into consideration the figures not relevant at the time of the accident, the compensation determined will not reflect the just compensation payable to the victim. Even if notional income is to be considered for determining compensation, the notional income to be arrived at should be rational and sensible. If not, the very object of awarding compensation gets defeated. Compensation awarded by taking grossly inadequate notional income cannot be termed as compensation in its truest sense of the word. 13. Even if notional income is to be considered for determining compensation, the notional income to be arrived at should be rational and sensible. If not, the very object of awarding compensation gets defeated. Compensation awarded by taking grossly inadequate notional income cannot be termed as compensation in its truest sense of the word. 13. The average inflation rate in India from 1992 to 2013 is 8.2% as per the data available on the internet. Even by adopting a conservative approach, 7% simple interest is added to Rs.30,000.00, the notional annual income considered in the case of Kishan Gopal supra, for 21 years (1992 to 2013), the notional income per annum in 2013 would be Rs.74,100.00. (Principal 30,000+Interest 44,100). The same is rounded off to Rs.74,000/-. 14. It is also required to be noticed that in Kishan Gopal’s case supra, the future prospect was not taken into consideration. In NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V/S. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 the Apex Court provided for the addition of future prospects to the income of the deceased. Applying the said ratio, if 40% future prospects is added to the notional income of Rs.74,000.00, the notional income to assess ‘loss of dependency’ would be Rs.1,03,600/-. In Kishan Gopal’s case supra, the deceased was aged 10 years. In this case, the deceased was aged 17 years. Considering the age of the deceased, this Court is of the view that notional income should be taken at Rs.1,10,000.00 per annum which is inclusive of future prospects. The appropriate multiplier is 18 as the deceased was aged 17 years. The ‘loss of dependency’ would be 1,10,000x18/2=Rs.9,90,000.00. Rs.40,000.00 each is to be awarded to the parents (Claimants No.1 and 2) towards the ‘loss of consortium’. Rs.15,000.00 under each of the heads namely, loss of estate and funeral expenses is to be awarded. Thus Rs.11,00,000.00 would be the compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,40,000.00 as compensation to the parents of the boy aged 17 years who died in 2013. The same would be grossly inadequate for the reasons assigned supra. 15. In the circumstances, for want of pleading and proof relating to the income, this Court is not accepting the plea to award compensation by taking notional income at Rs.8000.00 per month as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The same would be grossly inadequate for the reasons assigned supra. 15. In the circumstances, for want of pleading and proof relating to the income, this Court is not accepting the plea to award compensation by taking notional income at Rs.8000.00 per month as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. However, the compensation awarded by the tribunal taking Rs.30,000.00 per annum as the notional income of the boy aged 17 years who died in 2013, is also not justifiable for the reasons assigned above. 16. It is also noticed that the tribunal has not awarded any interest on the compensation awarded. No reasons were assigned for not awarding the interest. The omission appears to be inadvertent. The compensation determined by this Court shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment and award need to be interfered with and the compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-is awarded along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 18. Hence the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 31.01.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SCCH-4, Bengaluru in MVC No.4315/2013 is modified. (iii) The appellants no.1 and 2 are entitled to compensation of Rs.11,00,000.00 with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. (iv) The respondent/KSRTC shall pay the enhanced compensation after deducting the amount already paid within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (v) Appellants no.1 and 2 are entitled to 50% each in the compensation awarded. (vi) Out of the enhanced compensation, 50% shall be kept in fixed deposit for 3 years in the name of appellant no. 1 and the remaining 50% in the name of appellant no. 2 in any nationalized bank for 3 years with liberty to withdraw the interest accrued on it.