ORAL JUDGMENT HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J. The appeal in MFA No.20883/2012 is filed by the insurance company questioning liability and the cross objection in MFA CROB No.100038/2020 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Both these matters are arising against the judgment and award dated 08.11.2011, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Itinerate Sitting, Byadgi, in MVC No.58/2007. 3. Heard the arguments of learned counsels appearing for both the sides and perused the material placed before the Court. 4. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 5. It is the case of claimants that on 13.08.2006 at about 9.20 p.m. in the night hours the deceased was coming from Havari towards Chikkerur on Haveri Kaginehalli road by riding his motorcycle No.KA-27/K-338 along with his friend one Mahesh Ingalagondi and while so travelling, in between Chikkaingadahalli and Kurubanagonda villages, near poultry farm, all of a sudden the said motorcycle got struck of and as such the deceased Shivappa had stopped the motorcycle and while attending the motorcycle for repairing, at that time the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-27/L-3908 came from Haveri towards Kaginehalli with a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased Shivappa and immediately he was shifted to hospital, but without responding to the medical treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 13.08.2006 and on the next day his son had filed complaint on 15.08.2006 as per Ex.P.1 and P.2. 6. Upon the claim petition, the tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.11,55,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. by fastening liability on the insurance company. 7. The insurance company has preferred appeal on various grounds and the learned counsel for appellant insurance company argued in commensurate with the motorcycle No.KA-27/L-3908 was falsely implicated in the case. Further argued that the pillion rider who has witnessed the accident and also taken the injured to the hospital, who is an eye witness to the accident has not filed the complaint, but son of the deceased who is not an eye witness to the accident has lodged the complaint. Thus, it is a case of false implication of vehicle to claim compensation. Further submitted that either of the vehicle were not damaged. Therefore, this falsifies the case of the claimants. Thus, it is a case of false implication of vehicle to claim compensation. Further submitted that either of the vehicle were not damaged. Therefore, this falsifies the case of the claimants. Therefore, on these grounds argued that the case is a false one. Hence, pray to set aside the judgment and award passed by the trial Court by allowing the appeal. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the accident occurred on 13.08.2006 at about 9.20 p.m., and immediately on 15.08.2006 complaint was lodged. Hence, there is no delay in lodging complaint. He further argued that as per the information given by pillion rider of the motorcycle, the son of the deceased has lodged the complaint before the police. The complaint is in a natural course, as it was night time, the pillion rider did not notice the registration number of offending vehicle completely. Therefore, in a natural course of phenomena, registration number of offending vehicle was not reflected in the complaint. But upon conducting investigation, the police have filed chargesheet against the rider of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/L-3908. Therefore, there is no false implication of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/K- 338 in this case. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and also prayed for enhancement of compensation. 9. Upon considering the scenario in these cases, the accident was occurred on 13.08.2006 at about 9.20 p.m. It was night time and there were no lights on road. Therefore, pillion rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/K-338 did not notice registration number of offending vehicle. Complaint was lodged on 15.08.2006 at evening 4.00 p.m. The deceased died on 15.08.2006 at 11.45 p.m. Therefore, considering all these eventualities, there is no delay in lodging complaint. Just because the pillion rider has not lodged complaint and son of the deceased has lodged complaint, is not a ground to suspect the claimants case. Further, complaint is not an encyclopedia to state all minute things. But to the possible extent, according to the information furnished by pillion rider, the son of the deceased has lodged complaint before the police. Therefore, upon considering all these factual aspects, it could not be said that there is delay in lodging complaint. All these events are occurred in a natural course of time. But to the possible extent, according to the information furnished by pillion rider, the son of the deceased has lodged complaint before the police. Therefore, upon considering all these factual aspects, it could not be said that there is delay in lodging complaint. All these events are occurred in a natural course of time. Quite naturally, it was night time i.e., 9.20 p.m., therefore, there could not be a chances of noting down the registration number of offending vehicle. Hence, registration number of offending vehicle was not found in the complaint. Therefore, non-mentioning of registration number of offending vehicle in the complaint cannot make fatal to the claimants case. 10. Ex.P21 is Chargesheet and Ex.P11 to Ex.P20 are the Statement Of Witnesses. One among them, C.W.15 is eye witness annexed in the chargesheet. Upon considering the statement of eye witness, the rider of offending vehicle bearing registration No.K.27/L-3908 has caused the accident in question. Just because, eye witness is not examined, is not a ground to reject the claim petition. Just because, there is no damage appeared on the motorcycle is also not a ground to support the claimants’ case. As per eye witness of the accident, offending vehicle dashed the deceased and proceeds further and fell on road. There may be occurrence of damage or may not be. Therefore, upon considering the case on all its preponderance of probabilities, it is proved that the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/L-3908 has caused the accident. Therefore, the Insurance Company has failed to prove that a false fixation of motorcycle into the case. Hence, there is no merit found in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. Thus, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be set aside. Regarding Quantum of Compensation in MFA.CROB No.100038/2020: 11. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards loss of dependency. 11,20,000/- 2. Towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, loss of consortium. 25,000/- 3. Transportation of dead body. 10,000/- Total 11,55,000/- 12. The Tribunal awarded lesser amount of compensation contrary to the principles of law decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the same is required to be enhanced by modifying the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 13. The deceased-Shivappa was aged 43 years old as on the date of accident and was working as a high school teacher. The Tribunal awarded lesser amount of compensation contrary to the principles of law decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the same is required to be enhanced by modifying the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 13. The deceased-Shivappa was aged 43 years old as on the date of accident and was working as a high school teacher. The accident is caused on 13.08.2006. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of Rs.10,000/- per month. Ex.P25, Ex.P26, Ex.P27 and Ex.P28 are the documents proved that the deceased was working as a teacher in school. As per Ex.P25-Salary Certificate, the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.8,165/-. Further, Ex.P29 to Ex.P31 are R.T.C. Extracts showing that the deceased was owner of agricultural land. Therefore, considering all these evidence on record, the Tribunal is correct in holding the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has committed error in not adding income towards loss of future prospects in life. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others , reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680, considering the age of the deceased, 30% of the income is to be added towards loss of future prospects in life. There are four dependants i.e., wife, two children and father of the deceased. Therefore 1/4 th of the income is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Considering the age of the deceased, the appropriate applicable multiplier is 14. Therefore, loss of dependency is re-assessed and quantified at Rs.16,38,000/- (Rs.10,000 + 30% x 3/4 x 12 x 14). 14. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Limited v. Nanu Ram & Others, reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 and in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head ‘loss of consortium’, along with 10% escalation. There are two dependents, who are father and mother. Accordingly, Rs.1,76,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 4 + 10%) is awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium including loss of love and affection’. 15. Further, a compensation of Rs.15,000/- each is awarded under the head ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral and transportation’ respectively, along with 10% escalation. Therefore under these heads Rs.33,000/- (Rs.15,000 x 2 + 10%) is awarded. 16. Accordingly, Rs.1,76,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 4 + 10%) is awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium including loss of love and affection’. 15. Further, a compensation of Rs.15,000/- each is awarded under the head ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral and transportation’ respectively, along with 10% escalation. Therefore under these heads Rs.33,000/- (Rs.15,000 x 2 + 10%) is awarded. 16. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards loss of dependency 16,38,000/- 2. Towards loss of consortium (40,000 x 4 +10%) 1,76,000/- 3. Towards loss of estate and transportation of dead body & funeral expenses. (15,000 x 2 + 10%) 33,000/- Total: 18,47,000/- 17. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.18,47,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization, as against Rs.11,55,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 18. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) MFA No.20883/2012 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. ii) MFA.CROB No.100038/2020 filed by the Cross Objectors is allowed in part. iii) The judgment and award dated 08.11.2011, passed in MVC No.58/2007, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Ranebennur, stands modified. iv) The Cross Objectors are entitled for total compensation of Rs.18,47,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, as against the compensation of Rs.11,55,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. v) The respondent/Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in both the cases. vi) The order with regard to apportionment of compensation, deposit and release of amount would be as per order of Tribunal. vii) Send a copy of this judgment and award along with TCR to the Tribunal. viii) The amount in deposit made by the Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. ix) Needless to say that the claimants would not be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation amount for a period of 2739 days. Registry to take note of the same while drawing award. x) No order as to costs. xi) Draw award accordingly. xii) Pending applications, if any, in the above appeals are disposed off, as not surviving for consideration.