JUDGMENT : (C.M. POONACHA, J.) The above appeal and cross-objection call in question, challenging the judgment and award dated 07.12.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and AMCT, Thirthahalli , [Hereinafter referred as to ‘Tribunal’] Hence, they are taken up together for consideration. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal. 3. The relevant facts in a nutshell are that the claimant is claiming compensation for the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident dated 18.01.2013, the wife and parents of the deceased filed a claim petition arraying the owner, driver and insurer of the mini lorry in which the deceased was traveling, at the time of the accident as respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the claim proceedings. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded total compensation of Rs.8,62,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The insurer was directed to pay compensation awarded. Being aggrieved, the insurer has filed the present appeal and the claimants have filed the cross- objection. 4. Heard submissions of learned counsel Sri KN Srinivasa appearing for the appellant / insurer and learned counsel Sri PN Harish appearing for cross-objectorsclaimants. 5. It is a contention of learned counsel for the insurer that the appellant was a gratuitous passenger traveling in the insured vehicle, which was a mini lorry. Hence, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation awarded. It is further contended that the claimants have averred in the claim petition that the deceased was working as a conductor cum loader in the insured vehicle, that the risk of the conductor not being covered under the policy of the insurance, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation awarded. It is further contended that the deceased himself was responsible for causing accidentin question, as when he was in the process of spitting gutka, he lost control and fell down and the driver of the insured vehicle was not responsible for causing the accident in question. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants justifies the finding of negligence and liability passed by the Tribunal as just and proper. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants justifies the finding of negligence and liability passed by the Tribunal as just and proper. However, in support of the cross- objection, learned counsel for the claimants contended that the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side as well as the compensation awarded on other conventional heads is required to be enhanced. 7. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Tribunal have been perused. The questions that arise for consideration are: i. Whether the finding of the Tribunal on liability is erroneous and liable to be interfered with? ii. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be enhanced? Reg. question (i):- 8. The claimants in the claim petition have specifically averred that the deceased was traveling in the insured vehicle as conductor cum loader. It is further specifically averred that the deceased was traveling in the insured vehicle for distribution of food items in the school. 9. The owner and driver i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal have filed statement of objections wherein it is averred that the deceased was traveling as a loader/helper and he was engaged on a temporary basis for loading and unloading the goods being carried in the insured lorry. The insurer (respondent No.3 before the Tribunal) has filed statement of objections, averring, inter-alia that there was no employee and employer relationship between the deceased and the owner of the insured vehicle. It is further averred that the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger and the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation awarded. 10. The claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1 and the other occupant of the insured vehicle was examined PW.2. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondents before the Tribunal. The policy of insurance has been marked as Ex.R1. 11. The Tribunal while appreciating the contentions put forth by the insurer that the deceased himself was responsible for causing the accident in question, since the accident occurred when the deceased was spitting gutka, has recorded the following findings: “16. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondents before the Tribunal. The policy of insurance has been marked as Ex.R1. 11. The Tribunal while appreciating the contentions put forth by the insurer that the deceased himself was responsible for causing the accident in question, since the accident occurred when the deceased was spitting gutka, has recorded the following findings: “16. ……… As far as the manner of the accident is concerned, even if it to be assumed the deceased was spitting in Gutka at the time of the accident it does not amount to such a negligent act which can result in an accident unless it is corroborated by the negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and negligence in not properly locking the door. Hence the contention that the accident took place only because the deceased was spitting Gutka can not be accepted. On the other hand in the chargesheet it is the contention taken that since the driver suddenly applied the brake the deceased was thrown out and succumbed to the injuries.” (emphasis supplied) 12. Further, while considering the contentions of the insurer that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, the Tribunal has recorded the following findings: “17. In addition as far as the relation of employee and employer is concerned, respondent No.1 has stated that he was working as loader cum helper and the plaintiff has stated that he was working as conductor no doubt the deceased and the complainant are neighbours and it is also possible the deceased was travelling on way to his house however on perusal of the insurance policy it is a public carrier policy and the vehicle is a goods vehicles and admitted that it was proceeding with food items to school children and there was any no other employee except the driver and conductor and deceased in the said vehicle. Hence certainly the deceased was acting as loader cum helper in the vehicle as it was supplying food items for children and hence he was travelling as an employee and not as a gratuitous passenger at the time of the accident. Hence respondent No.3 being the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle.” (emphasis supplied) 13. Hence certainly the deceased was acting as loader cum helper in the vehicle as it was supplying food items for children and hence he was travelling as an employee and not as a gratuitous passenger at the time of the accident. Hence respondent No.3 being the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle.” (emphasis supplied) 13. It is forthcoming with regard to the manner of occurrence of the accident, the Tribunal has rightly held that in the absence of the insurer demonstrating that the driver himself was not in any manner negligent in causing the accident, merely because, the deceased is alleged to have been spitting gutka is not a ground to hold that the deceased himself was negligent in causing the accident. 14. With regard to the contention of the insurer that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. it is relevant to note that the claimants in the claim petition have specifically averred that the deceased was a conductor cum loader. Further, at para No.9 of the claim petition it is specifically averred that the deceased was traveling in the insured vehicle as a loader for distribution of food items. The owner and driver of the vehicle had filed a statement of objection wherein it is averred that the deceased was traveling in the insured vehicle as a loader, to enable distribution of food items. It is further relevant to note that the insured vehicle was a mini lorry and the seating capacity including driver was three. It is forthcoming from the records that apart from the driver there were two other persons traveling in the vehicle that is the deceased and PW.2. 15. The insurer has not examined any witness or adduced any evidence with regard to its contentions regarding liability. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the material available on record and held that the deceased was traveling in the insured vehicle as a loader cum helper and has held that the insurer was liable to pay the compensation. 16. The appellant - insurer has failed in demonstrating that the finding of the Tribunal on negligence is in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal. Hence, question (i) framed for consideration is answered in the negative Reg. Question (ii):- 17. 16. The appellant - insurer has failed in demonstrating that the finding of the Tribunal on negligence is in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal. Hence, question (i) framed for consideration is answered in the negative Reg. Question (ii):- 17. The deceased was aged 27 years as on the dated of the accident and the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier ‘17’. 18. It is averred that the deceased was a loader and unloader. However, no documents have been produced to demonstrate the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. Having regard to the date of the accident, it is just and proper that the income of the deceased be re-assessed as Rs.8,000/- per month. 19. The Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3 rd towards personal expenses in terms of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SARALA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS V/S DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER , [“ (2009) SCC 121 ”] . Future prospects at 40% is required to be awarded in terms of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD V/S PRANAY SETHI AND ORS, “ (2017)16 SCC 680 ” as against 50% awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, loss of dependency is re-assessed as (Rs.8,000/- + 40% - 1/3 X 12 X 17) =Rs.15,23,268/- as against Rs.6,12,000/-. 20. Loss of consortium is required to awarded in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY V/S NANU RAM ALIAS CHUBRU RAM AND ORS , [“ (2018)18 SCC 130 ”] , at Rs.40,000/- together with increment at 10% every three years. Hence, 20% increment is to be applied and the claimants are entitled to loss of consortium of (Rs.48,000 X 3) = Rs.1,44,000/- as against Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 21. The funeral expenses and loss of estate is required to be awarded at Rs.15,000/- each together with increment at 20%. Accordingly, the compensation at Rs.18,000/- each is awarded towards the same as against Rs.25,000/- each awarded by the Tribunal. 22. In view of the compensation having been awarded on all conventional heads, the compensation towards love and affection of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is set aside. 23. Accordingly, the compensation at Rs.18,000/- each is awarded towards the same as against Rs.25,000/- each awarded by the Tribunal. 22. In view of the compensation having been awarded on all conventional heads, the compensation towards love and affection of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is set aside. 23. In view of the aforementioned, the compensation re-assessed is as follows: Sl.No Compensation Head Amount Awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs.) 1 Towards loss of dependency 612000.00 1523268.00 2 Towards loss of consortium 50000.00 144000.00 3 Towards loss of love and affection 150000.00 00.00 4 Towards loss of estate 25000.00 18000.00 5 Towards funeral expenses 25000.00 18000.00 Total 862000.00 1703268.00 24. Accordingly, question (ii) framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of (Rs.17,03,268/- - Rs.8,62,000/-)Rs.8,41,268/-. 25. In view of the aforementioned, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is dismissed; ii) The Cross-objection is allowed in part; iii) The judgment and award dated 07.12.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and AMCT, Thirthahalli, is hereby modified to the extent stated herein. In all other respects, the judgment and award of the Tribunal shall remain unaltered; iv) The claimant Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.8,41,268/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Having regard to the order dated 11.06.2025 passed in MFA Crob.No.80/2022 the claimants shall not be entitled interest on the enhanced compensation for the delay period of 901 days in filing the cross-objection. v) The amount in deposit in MFA No.2706/2017 together with the records be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in terms of the award of the Tribunal; vi) The appellant – insurer in MFA No.2706/2017 shall deposit the balance compensation together with accrued interest within a period of six weeks; vii) Upon such deposit, the compensation together with interest accrued thereupon is to be disbursed to the claimants in terms of the judgment and award of the Tribunal; viii) The Registry to draw the modified award accordingly. No costs. In view of the disposal of the above appeal, pending interlocutory application/s does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.