JUDGMENT : B. Veerappa, J. The claimants i.e., father, mother, wife and children of the deceased Ramegowda filed the present appeal against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 04.01.2014 made in MVC No.114/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, K.R.Pet awarding total compensation of Rs.9,72,500/-with future interest at 8% per annum. from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by respondent No.1-the owner of the vehicle and dismissing the claim petition filed against respondent No.2-the insurance company and dismissing the claim petition filed by claimant Nos.1 and 4 i.e., father and major daughter of the deceased respectively. 2. It is the case of the claimants, who filed the claim petition under the provision of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act seeking compensation of Rs.30,77,000/-with future interest, that on 13.02.2009,when the deceased along with the villagers were coming back to Murukanahalli village in the Bullock cart on K.R.Pet-Mysore road near forest land at 9.30 a.m., lorry bearing registration No.KA-10/2365 came from the back side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Bullock Cart. Due to the said impact, Ramegowda and other two villagers sustained multiple grievous injuries to several vital parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, Ramegowda and his villagers were shifted to Government Hospital, K.R.Pet for first aid treatment. Thereafter, Ramegowda was referred to major high-tech hospital but, he succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. The post mortem was conducted at K.R.Pet Government Hospital. It is further contended that the deceased was hale and healthy at the time of the accident and he was experienced agriculturist, milk vendor/dairy farmer and in addition to this, he is a reputed Areca-nut businessmen in profession. The deceased was hard worker, he was growing commercial crops like Banana, Areca-nut, coconut, sugarcane etc. in a vast extent of about more than 15 acres of wet and garden lands and he was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/-per month. These were the main sources of his earning to lead his family. Therefore, sought for compensation as prayed for. 3. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.1-the owner of the offending vehicle has not appeared before the Court. Hence, he was placed ex-parte. 4. These were the main sources of his earning to lead his family. Therefore, sought for compensation as prayed for. 3. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.1-the owner of the offending vehicle has not appeared before the Court. Hence, he was placed ex-parte. 4. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company has filed the written statement denying all the allegations and contended that lorry bearing registration No.KA-10/2365 was duly insured as on the date of the accident but, liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The driver of lorry was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Therefore, respondent No.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and sought to dismiss of the claim petition. 5. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed three points for consideration, which are as under: 1) Whether the petitioners prove that the accident on 13.02.2009 at about 9.30 a.m. on K.R.Pet-Mysore high way the deceased Ramegowda died due to the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No.KA-10/2365 by its driver? 2) Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the driver of the Lorry bearing Reg.KA-10/2365 did not possess a valid and effective driving license to drive the particular type of the vehicle as on the date of the accident? 3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so? What extent and from whom?” 6. In order to prove their case, the claimants examined claimant No.3-the wife of the deceased as PW.1 and one Jayamarinayaka, an eyewitness as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. On behalf of the respondents, One K.Satish Chandru was examined as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R1-charge sheet. 7. The Tribunal, considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded a finding that the claimants proved that the accident occurred on 13.02.2009 was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-10/2365 and further held that respondent No.2 proved that the driver of the lorry did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive a particular type of vehicle as on the date of the accident and the claimants are entitled for the compensation. 8. 8. Accordingly, the Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and award, partly allowed the claim petition filed by claimant Nos.2, 3 & 5 to 7 and awarded total compensation of Rs.9,72,500/-with further interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by respondent No.1-the owner of the vehicle and the petition filed against respondent No.2-Insurance Company was dismissed and the petition filed by claimant Nos.1 and 2 i.e., father and major daughter of the deceased respectively was also dismissed. Hence, the present appeal is filed. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 10. Sri. P.Nataraju, learned counsel for the appellants contended that though the deceased was aged about 40 years and was earning Rs.20,000/-per month by doing business, the Tribunal erred in only taking Rs.5,500/-per month as income of the deceased ignoring the material on record. He would further contend that there are seven dependants. The Tribunal erred in deducting 1/4th instead of 1/5th as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another’ [ 2009 ACJ 1298 ]. He would further contend that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,00,000/-towards ‘loss of love and affection’ and Rs.1,00,000/-towards ‘loss of consortium’ is contrary to the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others [ AIR 2020 SC 3076 ] and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram & Others [ 2018 ACJ 2782 ], as the claimants are seven in number, claimant Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 7 are entitled to Rs.2,40,000/-towards ‘loss of love and affection’ and claimant No.3 is entitled to Rs.40,000/-towards ‘loss of consortium’. 11. Learned counsel would further contend that though the deceased was aged about 40 years, the Tribunal has not taken future prospects at 25% in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ]. He would further contend that respondent No.1 was the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and the vehicle was validly insured with respondent No.2. Pranay Sethi and [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ]. He would further contend that respondent No.1 was the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and the vehicle was validly insured with respondent No.2. But the Tribunal solely relying on the sole testimony of RW.1 and relying on the contents of the charge sheet grossly erred in coming to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle thereby, erroneously dismissed the claim petition filed against the insurance company. The same is illegal and improper as held by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several decisions. The Tribunal erred in not directing the insurance Company to pay the compensation at the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal. 12. Respondent Nos.1(A) and (B) though served, remained unrepresented. 13. Per contra, Sri. K.N.Sreenivasa, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company while justifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition against the insurance company contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. 14. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that would arise for our consideration in the present appeal are: 1) Whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim petition against the insurance company as well as claimant Nos.1 and 4 in view of the peculiar facts and circumstance of the present case? And 2) Whether the claimants have made out a case to enhance the compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case? 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully. 16. It is not in dispute that the deceased Ramegowda died in a road accident occurred on 13.02.2009 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-10/2365. The same is evident from the material documents Ex.P1-FIR and Ex.R1-charge sheet filed against the driver of the lorry thereby, the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry is proved. 17. The same is evident from the material documents Ex.P1-FIR and Ex.R1-charge sheet filed against the driver of the lorry thereby, the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry is proved. 17. It is also not in dispute that it is the specific contention taken by the insurance company in the statement of objection that the offending lorry bearing No.KA-10/2365 was duly insured as on the date of the accident but, liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company relying upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rukmani and others vs. New India Assurance co. Ltd. And others’ [ 1999 ACJ 171 ]. The same is contrary to the provision of Section 149 of the MV Act. It is well settled that once liability is fastened on the owner of the offending vehicle to pay compensation even when the driver has not possessed valid driving licence, it shall be paid by the insurance company at the first instance and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle initiating appropriate proceedings. 18. Our view is fortified by the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali vs Shyam Kishore Murmu and another’ [ (2022) 1 SCC 317 ] wherein, in paragraph Nos.11 to 17, it held as under: 11. As the claim was made under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, since the deceased child was not an earning member, the Tribunal has considered notional income as per Schedule–II for the purpose of fixing compensation. The Tribunal has awarded compensation by taking notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-per annum by applying multiplier of 15, awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-towards loss of dependency with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of judgment. The Tribunal has awarded compensation by taking notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-per annum by applying multiplier of 15, awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-towards loss of dependency with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of judgment. When the appeals are preferred by the Insurance Company as well as the appellants herein, by the impugned common judgment, the High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, and in the appeal preferred by the claimants, while confirming the compensation awarded for loss of dependency at Rs.2,25,000/-, has awarded a further sum of Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenses and accordingly granted a total compensation of Rs.2,40,000/-with interest @ 6% per annum payable by respondent No.2 -Insurance Company and by permitting it to recover the same from Respondent No.1 -owner of the motorcycle. 12. In the judgment in Puttamma, this Court has observed that the Central Government was bestowed with the duties to amend Schedule-II in view of Section 163-A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, but it failed to do so. In view of the same, specific directions were issued to the Central Government to make appropriate amendments to Schedule-II keeping in mind the present cost of living. In the said judgment, till such amendments are made, directions were issued for award of compensation by fixing a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for the non-earning children up to the age of 5 (five) years old and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) for the non-earning persons of more than 5 (five) years old. 13. In R.K. Malik also, this Court has observed that the notional income fixed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as Rs.15,000/-per annum should be enhanced and increased as the same continued to exist without any amendment since 14.11.1994. In Kishan Gopal where the deceased was a ten years old child, this Court has fixed his notional income at Rs.30,000/-per annum. 14. In this case, it is to be noted that the accident was on 06.09.2004. In spite of repeated directions, Schedule-II is not yet amended. Therefore, fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/-per annum for non-earning members is not just and reasonable. 15. 14. In this case, it is to be noted that the accident was on 06.09.2004. In spite of repeated directions, Schedule-II is not yet amended. Therefore, fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/-per annum for non-earning members is not just and reasonable. 15. In view of the judgments in Puttamma, R.K. Malik and Kishan Gopal, we are of the view that it is a fit case to increase the notional income by taking into account the inflation, devaluation of the rupee and cost of living. In view of the same, the judgment in Rajendra Singh relied on by the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company would not render any assistance to the case of the insurance company. 16. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to take notional income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) per annum. Accordingly, when the notional income is multiplied with applicable multiplier of 15, as prescribed in Schedule-II for the claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, it comes to Rs.3,75,000/-(Rs.25,000/-x Multiplier 15) towards loss of dependency. The appellants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/-each towards filial consortium and Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenses. Thus, the appellants are entitled to the following amounts towards compensation: (a) Loss of Dependency Rs. 3,75,000-00 (b) Filial Consortium (Rs.40,000/-x 2) Rs.80,000-00 (c) Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000-00 Total Rs. 4,70,000-00 17. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.4,70,000/-(Rupees four lakhs seventy thousand only) towards total compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. The enhanced compensation shall be apportioned between the appellants as ordered by the Tribunal. The entire compensation shall be paid to the appellants by respondent No.2 Insurance Company, and we keep it open to the Insurance Company to recover the same from respondent No.1 -owner of the motorcycle by initiating appropriate proceedings as the motorcycle was driven by the driver who was not possessing valid driving licence on the date of the accident.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in Kurvan’s judgment stated supra held that even when driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence ordered pay and recover. Thereby, the Tribunal is not justified in dismissing the claim petition filed against the insurance company. 19. Thereby, the Tribunal is not justified in dismissing the claim petition filed against the insurance company. 19. It is also relevant to state at this stage that the claimant No.1 is the father and claimant No.4 is the daughter of the deceased. The Tribunal proceeded to reject the claim of claimant No.1, who is none other than the father of the deceased and claimant No.4, the daughter of the deceased are not entitled for compensation. Ignoring that both are legal heirs and they are entitled to inherit surviving estate of the deceased as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘N.Jayasree and others vs Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd.’ reported in 2021 ACJ 2685 . In paragraph No.15, it held as under: 15. Indicatively for the present inquiry, the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, defines the term ‘legal representative’ as under: “Legal Representative” means a person who in law is entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased if he had left any estate at the time of his death and also includes any legal heir of the deceased and the executor or administrator of the estate of the deceased.” In view of the above, the dismissal of the claim petition against claimant Nos.1 and 4 is liable to be set aside. 20. It is relevant to state at this stage that even the major sons though earning a livelihood, were still largely dependent on their deceased mother as held by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of ‘National Insurance Company Limited vs. Birender and others’ [ (2020) 11 SCC 356 ]. In paragraph Nos.12 and 14, it held as under: “12. The legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependant on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression “legal representative” of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the legal representative concerned. Notably, the expression “legal representative” has not been defined in the Act. The Manjuri Bera, the Court observed thus:- “9. This Court in Manjuri Bera had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the legal representative concerned. Notably, the expression “legal representative” has not been defined in the Act. The Manjuri Bera, the Court observed thus:- “9. In terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Act in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to compensation and any such legal representative can file a claim petition. The proviso to said sub-section makes the position clear that where all the legal representatives had not joined, then application can be made on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased by impleading those legal representatives as respondents. Therefore, the High Court was justified in its view that the appellant could maintain a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Act. 10. …. The Tribunal has a duty to make an award, determine the amount of compensation which is just and proper and specify the person or persons to whom such compensation would be paid. The latter part relates to the entitlement of compensation by a person who claims for the same. 11. According to Section 2(11) CPC, “legal representative” means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. Almost in similar terms is the definition of legal representative under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e. under Section 2(1)(g). 12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique the definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead it stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir competent to inherit the property of the deceased can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression “legal representative”. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression “legal representative”. As observed in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child.” 14. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether legal representative concerned was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meager income between Rs.1,00,000/-and Rs.1,50,000/-per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependant on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years.” (Emphasis supplied) In view of the above, dismissing the claim petition against the father and married daughter of the deceased by the Tribunal is not justified and the same is liable to be set aside. 21. It is the specific case of claimant No.1, who is the wife of deceased, examined as PW.1 that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/-per month from agriculture and used to grow commercial crops. There were 15 acres of both wet and garden lands in the name of the father of the deceased and the same is evident from Ex.P5 -19 Pahani extracts. Ex.P6 is the certificate issued by Coromandel Sugars Limited and Ex.P7 is the certificate issued by the Milk Co-operative Society, Murukanahalli village which clearly depict that from 04.06.2008 to 25.01.2009, the deceased has supplied milk to the milk diary and it is categorically stated in the evidence by PW.1, the wife of the deceased that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/-per month. 22. 22. Though the Tribunal recorded a finding that no doubt that the documents Ex.P6 and P7 depict that the deceased was growing commercial crops like Banana, Areca-nut, coconut, sugarcane and supplying milk to the milk cooperative society, the same do not disclose the exact income of the deceased. Therefore, the contention of the claimants that the deceased was earning monthly income of Rs.20,000/-cannot be believed. The Tribunal ignoring the evidence and the documents on record proceeded to take only Rs.5,500/-per month as the income of the deceased. The Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence of PW.1 and RTC extracts produced as Ex.P5 though the name of the father of the deceased was shown. Ex.P7 shows that the deceased has supplied milk to the Milk Co-operative Society. The Tribunal ought to have taken Rs.6,500/-per month instead of Rs.5,500/-. 23. Even in the absence of any document, the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority has fixed Rs.5,000/-per month for the accident occurred in the year 2009. Taking into consideration the age, date of accident, Ex.P5 -19 Pahani extracts, Ex.P6 -certificate issued by Coromandel Sugars Limited in favour of the father of the deceased and Ex.P7 certificate issued by the Milk Co-operative Society, Murukanahalli Village in favour of the deceased, we are of the considered opinion that the income of the deceased could be taken at Rs.6,500/-per month. 24. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was self employed and in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case, the Tribunal ought to have taken atleast 25% of the income towards future prospects considering the age of the deceased as 40 years but, the same has not been done. Therefore, the income of the deceased would be Rs.8,125/-(Rs.6,500/-+ 25%). There are seven dependents. Hence, 1/5th has to be deducted towards his personal expenses in terms of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case. Hence, the ‘loss of dependency’ would be Rs.11,70,000/-(Rs.6,500/-x 12 x 15). 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the compensation towards ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’ in Magma’s case held that the dependants are entitled to Rs.40,000/-each towards ‘love and affection and consortium’. There are seven claimants in the present appeal Therefore, claimant Nos. Hence, the ‘loss of dependency’ would be Rs.11,70,000/-(Rs.6,500/-x 12 x 15). 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the compensation towards ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’ in Magma’s case held that the dependants are entitled to Rs.40,000/-each towards ‘love and affection and consortium’. There are seven claimants in the present appeal Therefore, claimant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 7 are entitled to Rs.2,40,000/-towards ‘loss of love and affection’ and claimant No.3 is entitled to Rs.40,000/-towards ‘loss of consortium’. 26. The Tribunal has correctly assessed Rs.25,000/-towards ‘funeral expenses’ and Rs.5,000/-towards ‘transportation of dead body’. 27. For the reasons stated, point No.1 raised is answered partly in affirmative holding that the claimants have made out a case to direct the insurance company-respondent No.2 to pay the compensation and recover the same from respondent No.1-the owner of the offending vehicle and dismissal of the claim petition against claimant Nos.1 and 4 cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside and point No.2 raised in the present appeal is answered partly in affirmative holding that the claimants are made out a case for further enhancement in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 28. On reassessing the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants/claimants are entitled for just and proper compensation as under: PARTICULARS Rs. 1 Loss of Dependency 11,70,000 2 Loss of love and affection 2,40,000 3 Loss of consortium to the wife 40,000 4 Transportation of dead body 25,000 5 Funeral expenses 5,000 TOTAL 14,80,000 In all, the claimants are entitled for Rs.14,80,000/-as against Rs.9,72,500/-awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation would be Rs.5,07,500/-. 29. In view of the above, we pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part. ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 04.01.2014 made in MVC No.114/2009 is modified. The claim petition filed by claimant Nos.1 to 7 are hereby allowed. The dismissal of the claim petition against the insurance company is set aside and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation at the first instance and recover the same from the owner-respondent No.1 later in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme court stated supra. The claim petition filed by claimant Nos.1 to 7 are hereby allowed. The dismissal of the claim petition against the insurance company is set aside and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation at the first instance and recover the same from the owner-respondent No.1 later in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme court stated supra. iii) The claimants are entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs.5,07,500/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. iv) The insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation within a period of eight weeks and on such deposit, the claimant No.3 is entitled for 40% of the compensation and other claimants are entitled for 10% each of the compensation. v) Office is directed to draw the award accordingly. No order as to costs.