JUDGMENT : UMESH M. ADIGA, J. 1. Both these appeals arises out of the judgment and award dated 29.09.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, MACT at Kunigal in MVC.No.1279/2009 (for short 'the Tribunal'). 2. MFA.No.8183/2016 is filed by the insurer and MFA.CROB.No.21/2019 is filed by the claimants. 3. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that, on 18.6.2009 around 7.00 a.m. deceased Jayanth was traveling in a lorry bearing registration No. KA-06-C-7272 as a cleaner. The driver of the said lorry drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner near K.R. Halli gate at Hiriyur Taluk and hit against lorry going ahead of it; As a result of which, the Jayanth sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries. The deceased was aged about 19 years and was working as a coolie in the said lorry and he was also doing business and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. The claimants were dependent upon the earnings of the deceased. On these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.2 - insurer denied the contentions of the claimants and also denied its liability to pay the compensation. On these reasons prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. The Tribunal framed necessary issues and additional issues. 7. The claimant to prove his case examined two witnesses as PWs-1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P18. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW-1 and marked Exs.R1 to R4. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry by its driver. Assessed the age of the deceased as 18 years, his monthly income as Rs.4,500/- deducted 1/4 th of his income towards personal expenses and applied multiplier as 18' and awarded following amount of compensation: Loss of dependency Rs. 7,29,000 Towards love and affection Rs. 10,000/- each to petitioner No. 2 to 4. Rs. 5,000/- each to petitioner Nos. 1 and 5. Rs. 40,000 Towards funeral expenses Rs. 15,000 Total Rs. 7,84,000/- 8. The insurer challenged the said judgment on the ground that he is not liable to pay the compensation. 9. The claimants filed for enhancement of the compensation. 10. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the sides. 11. 5,000/- each to petitioner Nos. 1 and 5. Rs. 40,000 Towards funeral expenses Rs. 15,000 Total Rs. 7,84,000/- 8. The insurer challenged the said judgment on the ground that he is not liable to pay the compensation. 9. The claimants filed for enhancement of the compensation. 10. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the sides. 11. Learned counsel for insurer vehemently contended that according to the case of the claimants, he was a sales man as well as writer in the office of Gokul Diary products. In Ex.P13 - it is mentioned that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by working as a salesman- cum-writer. If that is the case, he was traveling as a coolie is not believable. The contention of the claimant is contrary to the documents produced by them. Therefore, it is contended that solely for the purpose of claiming compensation, falsely pleaded as he was a cleaner of the said lorry. The Tribunal has erroneously accepted the same and decided the matter. He further contended that as per Ex.P13, the income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/- per month, whereas the Tribunal wrongly assessed his income as Rs.4,500/- per month while computing compensation. Moreover, it was contended that claimants were not dependant upon the deceased. Claimant No.1 is the step mother, claimant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are natural sisters and claimant No.5 is the step sister. These facts are not considered by the Tribunal. With these reasons, it is prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 12. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the deceased was a cleaner of the lorry, which is noted in Ex.P.13. As per the case of the claimant, he was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. However, the claimants have not examined Gokul Dairy Products to prove Ex.P13. Mere production of the said document does not mean that it is proved nor does it establish that the deceased was not working as a cleaner. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment, observed that respondent admitted that deceased was a cleaner of the lorry. The claimants contended that he was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. Even if it is not believed, his notional income be assessed on the basis of chart prepared by Karnataka Legal Services Authority, which is Rs.5,000/- p.m. The Tribunal has not considered future prospects. The claimants contended that he was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. Even if it is not believed, his notional income be assessed on the basis of chart prepared by Karnataka Legal Services Authority, which is Rs.5,000/- p.m. The Tribunal has not considered future prospects. 1/4 th of the income was deducted towards personal expenses instead of 50%, which may be re-considered by this Court. The amount of compensation awarded under other heads are also on the lower side. Therefore, they prayed for enhancement of the same. 13. The fact of the accident and death are not in dispute. The Tribunal considered the evidence available on record, held that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-06-C-7272 by its driver; As a result of the accident, Jayanth sustained injuries and later succumbed to the injuries. Hence, no need to reconsider. 14. The questions that arises for consideration is: 1. Whether the deceased was a "gratuitous passenger," or the cleaner of the said lorry? 2. Whether claimants entitled to enhancement? 15. The accident occurred on 18.06.2009 around 11.30 a.m. The complaint was filed on the same day at 11.30 a.m. In Ex.P3, it is mentioned that one Jayanth was in lorry as a cleaner. He sustained injuries to chest, both hands and legs and died. Ex.P5 - inquest mahazar also reveal that he was the cleaner of the lorry. In the charge sheet also it is mentioned that he was cleaner of the lorry. The insurer relies merely on Ex.P13, which is dated 15.12.2009 and was submitted nearly six months after the accident. Earlier documents reveal that the deceased was a coolie of the said lorry. The author of Ex.P13 was not examined to prove it. Both the documents i.e. Ex.P1 to P11 and P13 were produced by the claimants. The status of deceased in Ex.P1 to P11 are different. Ex.P1 is the copy of the public document. Under these circumstances, due to the non-examination of the author of Ex.P13, it is not proved. During the cross-examination of PW-14, the said document (Ex.P13) was shown to the witness who pleaded ignorance about the said document. Therefore, only on the basis of Ex.P13, which is not proved by the claimant, it cannot be held that deceased was working as salesman cum writer in the Gokul Diary products. During the cross-examination of PW-14, the said document (Ex.P13) was shown to the witness who pleaded ignorance about the said document. Therefore, only on the basis of Ex.P13, which is not proved by the claimant, it cannot be held that deceased was working as salesman cum writer in the Gokul Diary products. Based on the charge sheet and its enclosures, the Tribunal concluded that he was a cleaner of the said lorry and not gratuitous passenger. It does not call for interference. 16. The Tribunal has accepted the age of the deceased as 18 years on the basis of the copy of the document produced by the claimant. The multiplier applicable to the age group 18 to 25 years is also 18'. The claimants contend that deceased was earning Rs.7,000/- per month but there is no basis for it. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the claimant as Rs.4,500/- per month. Following the notional income chart prepared by Karnataka Legal Services Committee, the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.5,000/- per month. As per the law laid down by National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors . , (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 40% of his income has to be added towards future prospects. Undisputedly, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses since the deceased was unmarried. On the basis of the above said materials, amount of compensation under the head of loss of dependency is recalculated. 17. The claimants are entitled to compensation under conventional heads as held in the case of Pranay Sethi And Others. 18. Following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 - Claimants are entitled to compensation under the head loss of consortium. 19. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation: Compensation under different Heads Rs. Amount Loss of dependency 5000+40%x12x18x50% Rs. 7,56,000 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000 Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000x5) Rs. 2,00,000 Total Rs. 9,86,000 Compensation awarded by tribunal Rs. 7,84,000 Enhancement Rs. 2,02,000 Claimants are entitled for interest on the enhanced amount @ 6% p.a. Undisputedly respondents are liable to pay the same. 20. For the above discussions question No.1 is answered in the Negative and question No.2 partly in the affirmative. 21. 15,000 Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000x5) Rs. 2,00,000 Total Rs. 9,86,000 Compensation awarded by tribunal Rs. 7,84,000 Enhancement Rs. 2,02,000 Claimants are entitled for interest on the enhanced amount @ 6% p.a. Undisputedly respondents are liable to pay the same. 20. For the above discussions question No.1 is answered in the Negative and question No.2 partly in the affirmative. 21. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER : i. MFA.No.8183/2016 and MFA.Crob.No.21/2019 are allowed in part. ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 29.09.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal in MVC.No.1279/2009 is modified. iii. The claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation of Rs.2,02,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of the petition till realization excluding 631 days delay in filing cross objection. iv. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the same. v. Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of the award. vi. Remaining portion of the award regarding apportionment, deposit and release are not disturbed. vii. Whatever the amount deposited by the appellant-insurer shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to claimants on due identification. Send back the trial Court records along with the copy of this judgment.