JUDGMENT : UMESH M. ADIGA, J. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company (Respondent No.1) challenging the judgment and award dated 18 th September 2013, passed by the XIX Addl.Small Causes Judge, MACT and XLI Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (SCCH-17), (for short `Tribunal), in MVC.No.5131/2012. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 24.06.2012, the deceased Irshad Khan, who was the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-01-2552, was proceeding from Doddaballapur towards Yelahanka. When he was crossing the road near Nagenahalli Gate in front of Shanimahathma Temple, he stopped the lorry to give tappal papers to the Sales Tax Officer, at that time, a Tata Indica car bearing registration No.KA-03-AA-2836, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. 4. It is further the case of the claimants that the deceased was aged 34 years at the time of the accident; He was the driver of the lorry and earning Rs.15,000/- per month; Claimants are the wife, sons and parents of the deceased; They were depending upon the earnings of the deceased. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. 5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1-insurer filed written statement denying the contentions of the claimants. It also denied that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of driver of the car and denied its liability to pay the compensation. 6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues, for its determination. 7. The claimants to prove their case, examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked documents as Exs.P-1 to P-11. The respondents have examined one witness as RW-1 and marked three documents as Exs.R-1 to R-3. 8. After hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded the following compensation: Particulars Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency 12,96,000/- Loss of consortium 1,00,000/- Loss of love and affection 25,000/- Funeral expenses 25,000/- Loss of estate 25,000/- Total 14,71,000/- Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the insurer has preferred the present appeal. 9. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials placed before this Court. 10. 9. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials placed before this Court. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurer vehemently contended that the deceased was a professional driver and he knows how to cross the road, however, in this case, he was negligently crossing the road, at the time of the incident. This clearly indicates that due to the negligence of the deceased, the accident occurred. 11. It is further contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. There is no basis for the assessment of the income of the deceased. Amount of compensation awarded under the conventional heads are on the higher side. 12. It is further submitted that the driver of the car was not holding effective and valid driving licence to drive the said vehicle. As per the policy, it was a transport vehicle, however, the driver was not holding the license to drive light motor vehicle (Transport). Under these circumstances, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. With these reasons, prayed to modify the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants supported the findings of the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 14. Following questions arises for my determination : " (i) Whether the deceased had contributed for causing of the accident in question? (ii) Whether the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation? (iii) Whether the insurer is liable to pay the compensation in view of violation of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance? (iv) What order? Point No.1 : 15. In this case, undisputedly a criminal case was registered against the driver of the car and he was charge sheeted by the concerned police for driving his car negligently and causing the accident. As per the prosecution papers, driver of the car was going from Yelahanka towards Doddaballapura i.e., from South to North and driver of the lorry i.e., deceased was coming from Doddaballapur towards Yelahanka i.e., from North to South. There was a road divider/median and according to Ex.P-4 -sketch, width of each side of the road (carriage way) was 40 ft. Ex.P-3 - spot mahazar and Ex.P-4 shows that the accident took place near the road divider, carriage way going from Yelahanka-Doddaballapur road. There was a road divider/median and according to Ex.P-4 -sketch, width of each side of the road (carriage way) was 40 ft. Ex.P-3 - spot mahazar and Ex.P-4 shows that the accident took place near the road divider, carriage way going from Yelahanka-Doddaballapur road. The mark shown in Ex.P-4 indicates that driver of the car who was going in the middle of the road, suddenly took his vehicle to the right side nearer to the road divider, hitting the deceased. The manner in which accident occurred indicates that the driver of the car drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. 16. As already stated above, the width of one side of the road was 40 ft. Leaving so much space, why the driver of the car went to edge of the said road, nearer to the road divider, is not explained by the respondents. The best person to explain this fact is the driver of the car. He was not examined. The charge sheet and its enclosures does not support the contentions of the insurer that accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the deceased. The Tribunal considered the said materials and answered the issue No.1 against the Respondents. I do not find any reasons to interfere in the same. Hence, point no.1 is answered in the negative. Point No.2 : 17. The Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased as 34 years. Though claimants contended that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but, they were unable to prove the same though they have examined PW-2. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month, which is even lesser than the notional income as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since there is no appeal preferred by the claimants, there is no need to reconsider it. 18. The Tribunal added 50% of the income towards future prospects. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., -vs- Pranay Sethi , [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] , 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects since the deceased was not having any fixed salary. Since the age of the deceased was taken as 34 years, the suitable multiplier applicable to the case on hand is `16'. 19. Ltd., -vs- Pranay Sethi , [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] , 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects since the deceased was not having any fixed salary. Since the age of the deceased was taken as 34 years, the suitable multiplier applicable to the case on hand is `16'. 19. The deceased left his wife, two sons and his parents, totally five members. Considering the same, the Tribunal has deducted 1/4 th of his income towards personal expenses. On the basis of above said information, the compensation under the head `loss of dependency' is to be recalculated. 20. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi's case (supra), and in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., -vs- Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram, , [(2018) SC 1247] are followed to award compensation under conventional heads. The claimants have not disputed the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, reconsideration of the same is not required. The compensation amount is modified taking into consideration of grounds of the appeal. 21. For the aforesaid discussion, following amount of compensation is awarded: Particulars Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency (Rs.6,000/- + 40% x 12 x 16/ 3/4 ) 12,09,600/- Loss of consortium 1,00,000/- Funeral expenses 15,000/- Loss of estate 15,000/- Total 13,39,600/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal - Amount shall be reduced by 14,71,000/- __________ 1,31,400/- 22. Claimants are also entitled for interest on the said amount of compensation at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered, in favour of insurer. Point No.3 : 23. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had no effective and valid driving licence. Ex.R-2 shows that it was a commercial vehicle. Ex.R-3 shows that said driver was authorized to drive light motor non-transport car and that it was in force from 02.02.2008 to 01.02.2028. He was driving transport vehicle. Hence, owner of the car violated terms of policy by engaging a driver who had no effective driving license. Ex.R-2 shows that it was a commercial vehicle. Ex.R-3 shows that said driver was authorized to drive light motor non-transport car and that it was in force from 02.02.2008 to 01.02.2028. He was driving transport vehicle. Hence, owner of the car violated terms of policy by engaging a driver who had no effective driving license. The said submission is not tenable in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Mukund Dewangan -vs- Oriental Insurance Company Limited , [ (2017) 14 SCC 663 ] , which is approved by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited -vs- Rambha Devi , [ (2025) 3 SCC 95 ] , wherein it is held that driver of the non-transport vehicle can drive the transport vehicle. Insurer shall not be exonerated from its liability to pay compensation on this ground. In view of the law laid down in the said judgments, respondents are liable to pay compensation. For the above said discussion, point No.3 is answered in the negative. For the above reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed in part ii) The judgment and award dated 18 th September 2013, passed in MVC.No.5131/2012, by the XIX Addl.Small Causes Judge, MACT., and XLI Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, (SCCH-17), stands modified. iii) The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.13,39,600/- as against Rs.14,71,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. iv) Appellant - Insurance Company shall deposit the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of the award. v) The apportionment, release and deposit of the amount shall be as ordered by the Tribunal. vi) Whatever amount deposited by the appellant-insurer before this Court shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement. vii) Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal.