JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation and also fixing the liability on the owner and thereby exonerating the insurance company from payment of compensation, appellants who are petitioners before the Trial Court have come up with this appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their rank before the Tribunal. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the wife, mother and siblings of deceased-Ramesh. On 10/11/2015 deceased-Ramesh was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-32-Y-2903. At around 11:30 p.m. when he was opposite to Gurupadeshwar temple of Manna Ekheli on Muttangi-Madaragi road, a Ape Goods Auto bearing Reg.No.KA-32-C-0694, driven by its driver in a rash or negligent manner came and dashed against the motorcycle of deceased. He sustained grievous injuries. While undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital, Musheerabad of Secundrabad, he died on 13/11/2015. 3.1 Deceased was aged 25 years, earning Rs.12,000.00 per month. Petitioners were dependents on him. As owner and insurer respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 4. Before the Tribunal respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 5. Respondent No.2 appeared and filed written statement, denying the age, occupation and income of the deceased and that petitioners were dependent on him. Deceased contributed to the cause of accident, but in collusion with the police, a false case is registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. Though the offending vehicle was covered by a valid policy, since the driver was not holding a valid licence, it is not liable to indemnify the owner. It has sought for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed necessary issues. 7. Petitioner No.2 has got examined herself as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to 7 are marked. 8. On behalf of respondent No.2, RW.1 is examined and Exs.R1 to 9 were marked. 9. Vide the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal partly allowed the petition granting compensation in a sum of Rs.21,70,500.00 with interest @ 6% per annum and directed respondent No.1 to pay the same on the ground that at the time of accident, the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. The details of the compensation granted are as under: 10. The details of the compensation granted are as under: 10. During the course of argument, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating respondent No.2/insurance company on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence. Respondent No.2 has not examined the RTO and failed to produce documents to prove that there is violation of policy condition. The Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence solely on the ground that charge-sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Sec. 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pappu & Ors vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr., (2018) 3 SCC 208 . respondent No.2 may be directed to pay the compensation and recover the same from respondent No.1. 10.1 So far as quantum is concerned, learned counsel for petitioners submitted the income of the deceased ought to have been taken at Rs.12,000.00 per month as against Rs.9,000.00 and prays to allow the appeal. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supported the impugned judgment and award and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Heard arguments and perused the records. 13. Having regard to the specific grounds urged in the appeal, it is necessary to examine whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or it calls for interference by this Court under the following various heads. 14. Loss of dependency: Though the petitioners claim that deceased was aged 25 years, in the absence of evidence to prove the same, based on medical records the Tribunal correctly taken deceased to be coming in the age group of 26-30 and therefore multiplier 17'. Though petitioners claim that deceased was earning Rs.12,000.00 per month they have not produced any evidence to prove the same. Therefore, notional income of Rs.9,000.00 taken by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, although as per the minimum wages it ought to have been taken at Rs.8,000.00. Since there are five dependents 1/4th deduction towards his personal and living expenses is correct. Therefore, notional income of Rs.9,000.00 taken by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, although as per the minimum wages it ought to have been taken at Rs.8,000.00. Since there are five dependents 1/4th deduction towards his personal and living expenses is correct. Since deceased was less than 40 years and he was a coolie 40% of his income was required to be added towards loss of future prospects, but the Tribunal has wrongly added 50% by referring to decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hem Raj vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd . and others, 2018 ACJ 5 . However, in the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed only 40% future prospects. If notional income taken at Rs.8,000.00 per month and added 40% of it at Rs.3,200.00 the income comes to Rs.11,200.00. With these components the loss of dependency is Rs.11,200.00 x 12 x 17 x 3/4 = Rs.17,13,600.00. But Tribunal has granted Rs.20,65,500.00 which is on the higher side. 15. Loss of Consortium: As wife and mother only petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.40,000.00 each which comes to Rs.80,000.00. But the Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.30,000.00 to petitioner No.1 and Rs.10,000.00 each to petitioner Nos.2 to 5. 16. Loss of estate and funeral expenses: As per National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . (Pranay Sethi's case), and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram And Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 . (Magma Insurance Company case) when substantial compensation is granted under the head loss of dependency a sum of Rs.15,000.00 each is to be granted under these two heads. However, though the Tribunal has granted Rs.15,000.00 under the head funeral expenses, it has granted Rs.20,000.00 under the head loss to estate. 17. As per the correct calculation, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation in a sum of Rs.18,23,600.00 18. Since the Tribunal has granted Rs.21,70,500.00 which is higher than what petitioners are eligible and as respondents have not challenged the same, I hold that petitioners are not entitled for any enhancement. 19. Now coming to the question of liability. It is an undisputed fact that as on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was covered by a valid policy issued by respondent No.2. 19. Now coming to the question of liability. It is an undisputed fact that as on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was covered by a valid policy issued by respondent No.2. The Tribunal has exonerated respondent No.2 from the liability on the ground that at the time of accident driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence. However, in Pappu's case, (2018) 3 SCC 208 . the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the offending vehicle is insured, in the absence of the driver of offending vehicle possessing a valid driving licence, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner. Therefore, in this case also it is necessary to direct respondent No.2/insurance company to pay the compensation with interest and recover the same from respondent No.1-owner. 20. Though petitioners are not entitled for enhancement, to this extent, the appeal deserves to be allowed-in-part and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) Respondent No.2 is directed to pay the compensation as quantified by the Tribunal together with interest and recover the same from respondent No.1.