JUDGMENT : K.S. HEMALEKHA, J. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 11.05.2020 in M.V.C.No.1243/2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.XIII and IV Additional District Judge, Vijayapur, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short), the claimant has preferred appeal in M.F.A.No.200924/2021 seeking enhancement of compensation, while the Insurance Company has preferred appeal in M.F.A.No.200992/2020 seeking reduction of compensation awarded. Brief facts of the case: 2. In a road traffic accident that occurred on 26.02.2014, one Dagadu Mane, who was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-13/BH-5771 along with his relative-Keshav, sustained fatal injuries when a Truck bearing registration No.MP-14/HB-0230, came from opposite side and collided with the motorcycle. As a result, Dagadu Mane succumbed to the injuries. The appellant HC-KAR claiming to be the wife of deceased filed claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.55,50,000/-. 3. Initially, the claim petition was filed against respondent Nos.1 and 2. During the course of the proceedings, the claimant impleaded respondent Nos.3 to 5, who are father, mother and sister of deceased-Dagadu Mane. 4. The Insurance Company–Respondent No.2 specifically denied its liability and opposed the quantum of compensation sought by the claimant. 5. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 denied that the claimant is the wife of deceased–Dagadu Mane. They admitted their relationship with deceased–Dagadu Mane. The respondent No.3 before the Tribunal contended that respondent No.4 is the stepmother of deceased, as the deceased was born through the first wife of respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 is his second wife and not entitled for compensation. 6. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, concluded that deceased-Dagadu Mane, the son of Ankush Mane, died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 26.02.2014, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Truck bearing registration No.MP-14/HB-0230. Accordingly, the Tribunal fastened the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation in a sum of Rs.16,23,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum. However, the Tribunal held that the appellant/claimant and respondent No.4 must establish their legal status as the wife and mother/stepmother of the deceased before a Competent Civil Court. The Tribunal further observed that only upon such declaration, could apportionment of the awarded compensation be sought by the parties. Therefore, the Tribunal did not pass any order regarding the apportionment of the compensation. 7. The Tribunal further observed that only upon such declaration, could apportionment of the awarded compensation be sought by the parties. Therefore, the Tribunal did not pass any order regarding the apportionment of the compensation. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, while reiterating the contentions raised in the appeal HC-KAR memo, mainly would contend that the appellant/claimant has proved that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased-Dagadu Mane. In support of this, the appellant has filed I.A.No.1/2025 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking to produce the certified copy of the order dated 22.06.2022 passed in Civil Misc. Application No.84/2021 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Madha taluk, Dist. Solapur. By the said order, the appellant has been declared as the legally wedded wife of deceased-Dagadu Mane. In light of the said declaration, it is submitted that the appellant/claimant is entitled to claim her lawful share in the apportionment of compensation as per law. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company - respondent No.2 submits that the appellant/claimant failed to establish before the Tribunal that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased-Dagudu Mane and the Tribunal having held and treated the deceased as unmarried should have deducted 50% of his income towards personal and living expenses rather than HC-KAR applying 1/3 rd deduction as was done by the Tribunal. Therefore, it is submitted that the compensation awarded is excessive and liable to be reduced accordingly. 9. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, the points that arises for consideration are: 1) Whether the appellant/claimant has proved that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased-Dagadu Mane in light of the order dated 22.06.2022 passed in Civil Misc. Application No.84/2021? 2) Whether the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal warrants any interference in the present facts and circumstances of this case? 10. It is to be noted here that respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 have been served in MFA No.200992/2020. Further, by order of this Court dated 19.03.2025, notice to respondents No.1, 3, 4 and 5 was dispensed with in MFA No.200924/2021, as the said respondents have already been served and remained unrepresented in the connected appeal in MFA No.200922/2020 filed by the Insurance Company. 11. Further, by order of this Court dated 19.03.2025, notice to respondents No.1, 3, 4 and 5 was dispensed with in MFA No.200924/2021, as the said respondents have already been served and remained unrepresented in the connected appeal in MFA No.200922/2020 filed by the Insurance Company. 11. Point No.1: The appellant in MFA No.200924/2021 is the claimant before the Tribunal and claims to be the legally wedded wife of deceased-Dagadu Mane. On account of his death in the road traffic accident, she sought compensation. The Tribunal while awarding compensation of Rs.16,23,000/-, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and accordingly fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. However, the Tribunal refrained from apportioning the compensation, observing that the appellant/claimant and respondent No.4 had not proved their legal status as the wife and stepmother respectively of the deceased-Dagadu Mane. Therefore, the Tribunal directed to obtain appropriate declaration from the competent Civil Court to establish their entitlement. 12. In compliance with the said direction, the appellant has now produced a certified copy of the judgment dated 22.06.2022 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.84/2021 on the file of the Court of Civil HC-KAR Judge (Jr.Dn.) Taluka Madha, District Solapur. By the said order, the appellant has been declared as the legal heir and the wife of deceased-Dagadu Mane. This order satisfies the condition imposed by the Tribunal and is binding for the purpose of establishing her status. In view of the same, we hold that the appellant/claimant is the legally wedded wife of deceased-Dagadu Mane and is entitled to compensation and apportionment. It was contended by the respondent No.3 before the Tribunal that respondent No.4 is the stepmother of the deceased and she is his second wife. In this regard, it is to be noted that a stepmother can be considered as a legal representative under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, provided it is shown that she was dependent on the deceased. In the instant case, there is no material on record to establish or refute the dependency of respondent No.4. However, considering her status as a legal representative, a share has to be apportioned in her favour. 13. In the instant case, there is no material on record to establish or refute the dependency of respondent No.4. However, considering her status as a legal representative, a share has to be apportioned in her favour. 13. Point No.2: While awarding compensation, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.14,28,000/- towards loss of dependency by taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-p.m. in the absence of any material evidence to establish the actual income of the deceased. The Tribunal added 50% towards future prospects, applying ‘17’ multiplier considering the age of deceased as 26 years, and deducted 1/3 rd towards personal and living expenses. Though the learned counsel for the Insurance Company - respondent No.2 disputed the marital status of the deceased and contended that he was a bachelor and therefore, 50% deduction has to be made towards personal expenses, it has been established by the appellant that the deceased was married and the appellant is his legally wedded wife, hence, the deduction of 1/3 rd is appropriate. 14. However, it is to be noted that the Tribunal has added 50% towards future prospects, whereas in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of HC-KAR National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1 (Pranay Sethi), the correct addition for future prospects in case of deceased aged below 40 years is 40%. Further, the notional income for the year 2014 as per the Guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority ought to have been taken at Rs.7,500/- per month instead of Rs.6,000/- p.m. 15. If the monthly income of the deceased is taken at Rs.7,500/- and 40% is added towards future prospects (as the deceased is aged about 26 years), the total monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.10,500/-. Applying the multiplier 17, multiplying by 12 months and deducting 1/3 rd towards personal expenses [Rs.10,500/- + (40%) x 12 x 17 x 2/3), the resulted loss of dependency works out to Rs.14,28,000/- which is correctly computed by the Tribunal. (2017) 16 SCC 680 HC-KAR 16. The Tribunal has awarded compensation as under: Heads Amount Loss of dependency Rs.14,28,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.20,000/- Spousal consortium Rs.1,00,000/- Parental consortium Rs.50,000/- Filial consortium Rs.25,000/- Total Rs.16,23,000/- 17. (2017) 16 SCC 680 HC-KAR 16. The Tribunal has awarded compensation as under: Heads Amount Loss of dependency Rs.14,28,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.20,000/- Spousal consortium Rs.1,00,000/- Parental consortium Rs.50,000/- Filial consortium Rs.25,000/- Total Rs.16,23,000/- 17. Upon re-assessment, the total compensation payable would be as follows: Heads Amount Loss of dependency Rs.14,28,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Spousal consortium Rs.40,000/- Parental consortium Rs.80,000/- Filial consortium Rs.25,000/- Total Rs.16,03,000/- 18. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.16,23,000/-. On re-assessment, the claimant is entitled total compensation of Rs.16,03,000/-. The difference of HC-KAR compensation is marginal. Therefore, this Court finds that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. We answer the points raised for consideration accordingly, and we pass the following: ORDER i. MFA No.200924/2021 filed by the claimant is allowed in part. ii. MFA No.200992/2020 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. iii. The appellant/claimant and respondent Nos.3 to 5 are entitled for compensation of Rs.16,23,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum till the date of realization as awarded by the Tribunal. iv. The appellant/claimant is entitled for 60% of the total compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. Out of 60%, 40% of the compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant/claimant and remaining 20% shall be kept in fixed HC-KAR deposit for a period of three years in any nationalized bank and the appellant/claimant is entitled to withdraw the accrued interest. v. Respondent No.3, the father of the deceased-Dagadu Mane is entitled for 20%, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are each entitled to 10% of the compensation amount and the same shall be released in their favour. vi. Amount in deposit in MFA No.200992/2020 is remitted back to the Tribunal. vii. Trial Court records to be sent back to the Tribunal. viii. Pending I.As if any, do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, same stand disposed of.