JUDGMENT : This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.08.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira in MVC No.198/2016. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 14.01.2016 at about 02.30 p.m., when one Hanumantharayappa along with deceased-Maradi Ranganatha were waiting for the Bus on Tumkur-Sira NH-4 service road, near Bramhasandra Gate, Kallambella Hobli, Sira Taluk and at that time, the driver of Maruthi Omni Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-MJ-5797 from Tumkur towards Sira on the said NH-4 road drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased and others. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest. 4. On service of summons, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and only respondent No.2 has filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. The age, occupation and income of the deceased are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. On behalf of respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document was produced. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,70,000/-along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. 6. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,70,000/-along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. 6. The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions: Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.10,000/-per month by doing agricultural work, milk vending and flower business. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.7,500/-. Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v-PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [ AIR 2017 SC 5157 ], in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income towards ‘future prospects’ should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. The same may be considered. Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V-NANU RAM [ 2018 ACJ 2782 ], each of the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/-under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’. Fourthly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter-contentions: Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, the same is not established by the claimants by producing documents. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased notionally. Secondly, since the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards ‘future prospects’. Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Lastly, in view of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the claimants are entitled for 6% interest but the Tribunal has granted 9% interest is on the higher side. Lastly, in view of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the claimants are entitled for 6% interest but the Tribunal has granted 9% interest is on the higher side. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. It is not in dispute that Maradi Ranganath died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.10,000/-per month. But they have not produced any documents to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2016, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.9,500/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘PRANAY SETHI’ (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.13,300/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, it is appropriate to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly income comes to Rs.6,650/-. The deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘18’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.14,36,400/-(Rs.6,650*12*18) on account of ‘loss of dependency’. In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/-on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.15,000/-on account of ‘funeral expenses’. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant Nos.1 and 2, parents of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/-each under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’ . 10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation: Compensation under Amount in different Heads (Rs.) Loss of dependency 14,36,400 Funeral expenses 15,000 Loss of estate 15,000 Loss of Filial consortium 80,000 Total 15,46,400 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. 10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation: Compensation under Amount in different Heads (Rs.) Loss of dependency 14,36,400 Funeral expenses 15,000 Loss of estate 15,000 Loss of Filial consortium 80,000 Total 15,46,400 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.15,46,400/- as against Rs.8,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘MS. JOYEETA BOSE’, the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 9% p.a. (the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum) from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. In view of the order dated 15.07.2022 passed by this Court, the claimants are not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 591 days in filing the appeal.