JUDGMENT : K.MANMADHA RAO, J. 1. These appeals are filed by the Insurance Company and the claimants respectively under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act' for short), challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.17/2011 dated 13.11.2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Nagamangala. The Insurance Company has challenged the negligence attributed on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and claimants are seeking for enhancement of compensation respectively. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.07.2010, at about 7.30 p.m., when deceased Sri.Kantharaju and Sri.Rukmangada were going on a Motor cycle (unregistered) towards Haralakere village, when they reached near the land of Jalaiah a Mahindra Tractor bearing Reg.No.KA-11-T-6670/6671 being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite side and hit the motor cycle. Due to the said accident, deceased Sri.Kantaraju who was traveling as a pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to General Hospital at Nagamangala. Later, he was shifted to Government Hospital at Mandya and then to Nimhans and Sharavathi at Bengaluru. Deceased was taking treatment as an inpatient but succumbed to the injuries on 22.12.2010. Therefore, the claimants have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation. 4. Upon service of notice, the respondents have appeared through their respective counsel and filed their separate written statement. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in their written statement has contended that the deceased is alleged to have contributed to the accident and the respondent No.2 has insured the vehicle with respondent No.3 and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. Respondent No.3 in its written statement has contended that the accident has caused due to negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle and the petition was bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The motor cycle was purchased on 22.01.2010 and the accident had occurred on 26.07.2010 and the vehicle till then was never registered with any RTO. Sri.Rukmangada was riding the motor cycle with two other pillion riders. It has contended that driver of the Tractor was not possessing valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Sri.Rukmangada was riding the motor cycle with two other pillion riders. It has contended that driver of the Tractor was not possessing valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues and recorded the evidence. The claimants have examined four witnesses as PWs-1 to 4 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P-11. The respondents have examined three witnesses as RWs-1 to 3 and got marked documents at Exs.R.1 to R.3. 6. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the documents, the Tribunal has allowed the petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.11,86,024/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the judgment and award of the Tribunal is contrary to the documents and evidence on record and the Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability at the rate of 70:30 on the insurer and the claimant respectively, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the liability in the ratio of 50% each as there were three persons riding on the motor cycle at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has also erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month without any proof of income as the accident is of the year 2010. Hence, the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation under all conventional heads. Therefore, on these grounds, prays for interference with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal by allowing the appeal. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the occurrence of accident and death of said Kantharaju is not in dispute. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider the same. He has also contended that the Tribunal has erred in attributing 30% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. He has submitted that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record. He further submits that amount of compensation awarded under the conventional heads is on the lower side. He has also contended that the Tribunal has erred in attributing 30% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. He has submitted that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record. He further submits that amount of compensation awarded under the conventional heads is on the lower side. It is also contended that the Tribunal committed an error in not adding 40% of future prospects to the notional income without considering or appreciating the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . It is also contended by him that the Tribunal has failed to consider the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram & Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A.No.1100/2019 & connected matters disposed of on 12.06.2019 in awarding compensation towards ‘loss of consortium’. He therefore requests this Court to enhance the compensation by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, prayed to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation. 10. Learned counsel for the claimants have relied upon the following judgments:- 1. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, by its Managing Director vs. Arun @ Aravind and others reported in ILR 2004 KAR 26; 2. Sushma vs. Nitin Ganapati Rangole and others reported in 2024 ACJ 2161; 3. National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 ; 11. It is contended that the deceased was doing Agriculture and Milk Vending business and was earning a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month. The accident has taken place in the year 2010 and as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, income of the deceased is taken at Rs.5,500/- per month. As the deceased was aged 34 years as on the date of accident, 40% has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects as per Pranay sethi supra. The multiplier applicable is ‘16’. Since there are five claimants, 1/4 th of his income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. As the deceased was aged 34 years as on the date of accident, 40% has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects as per Pranay sethi supra. The multiplier applicable is ‘16’. Since there are five claimants, 1/4 th of his income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Accordingly, on re-determination of the ‘loss of dependency’, the same works out to be: 5,500 + 40% x 12 x 16 x 3/4 = Rs.11,08,800/- 12. The Tribunal has awarded compensation towards ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘loss of love and affection’ to the appellants at Rs.1,30,000/- which is in meager. Hence, a sum of Rs.40,000/- each is awarded for five dependants. Therefore, the appellants/claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- 13. Compensation of a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards ‘funeral expenses and transportation of dead body’. 14. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.51,720/- towards ‘medical expenses’, which is just and reasonable. 15. Thus, the total compensation re-determined by this Court under various heads are as follows: 16. The appellants – claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.13,90,520/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 17. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased is guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 30%. The said finding being based on correct appreciation of material on record, the same does not warrant interference by this Court. Thus, 30% of the total compensation amount comes to Rs.4,17,156/-. Thus, deducting the same with the amount of Rs.13,90,520/-, the appellants – claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.9,73,364/- (Rs.13,90,520/- - Rs.4,17,156/-) rounded off to Rs.9,74,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 18. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. MFA No.3655/2019 filed by the Insurance Company is hereby allowed in part ii. MFA No.419/2020 filed by the claimants is dismissed iii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.17/2011 dated 13.11.2018 by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, at Nagamangala is hereby modified and the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.9,74,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. iv. MFA No.419/2020 filed by the claimants is dismissed iii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.17/2011 dated 13.11.2018 by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, at Nagamangala is hereby modified and the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.9,74,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. iv. The compensation amount along with accrued interest if any, shall be deposited by the Insurance Company, within eight weeks from the date of filing of the petition till realization; v. The claimants are not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 314 days in filing the MFA No.419/2020. vi. Apportionment of compensation shall be as per the judgment and award of the Tribunal. vii. The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith, along with TCR and a certified copy of this judgment. viii. No order as to costs.