JUDGMENT : C.M. POONACHA, J. 1. Both the appeals are filed calling in question the judgment and award dated 26.05.2015 passed in MVC No.7909/2010 by the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-5) at Bengaluru. Hence, both the appeals are taken up together for consideration. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal. 3. The relevant facts in a nutshell are that, claiming compensation for the death of deceased in a road traffic accident which occurred on 29.07.2010, the wife and children of the deceased instituted claim proceedings arraying the owner and insurer of the offending bus as respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as mother of the deceased as respondent No.3. The owner of the offending bus remained exparte before the Tribunal. The claim proceedings were contested by the insurer of the bus. 4. The Tribunal by the judgment and award dated 26.05.2015 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs.15,79,000/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. Being aggrieved, MFA No.5177/2015 is filed by the insurer and MFA No.3774/2018 is filed by the claimants. 5. Learned counsel - Sri.Ashok N Patil appearing for the appellant/insurer assailing the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal vehemently contends that the accident being a head on collision between the vehicle that was being driven by the deceased and the bus, the Tribunal ought to have held that both the drivers were negligent in causing the accident in question. It is further contended that the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side as well as deduction of 1/4 th made by the Tribunal is also excessive. Hence, learned counsel seeks for allowing the above appeal and granting of the reliefs sought for. 6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.K.K.Vasanth appearing for the claimants justifying the finding of the Tribunal on negligence, contends that the charge sheet having been filed against the driver of the bus and the insurer not having examined any eye witness, the finding of the Tribunal is just and proper. It is further contended that the quantum of compensation awarded is on the lower side since future prospects has not been awarded. Hence, he seeks for enhancement of quantum of compensation. 7. It is further contended that the quantum of compensation awarded is on the lower side since future prospects has not been awarded. Hence, he seeks for enhancement of quantum of compensation. 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. 8. The questions that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the finding of the Tribunal on negligence, is erroneous and liable to be interfered with? (ii) Whether the quantum of the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper? RE. QUESTION No.(i): 9. The claimants in the claim petition have averred that when the deceased was driving the Eicher Van from Anantapuram to Gutti, a bus being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came on the wrong side of the road and hit the vehicle being driven by the deceased. The insurer of the bus in the statement of objections has specifically averred that the negligence in causing the accident is on the part of the driver of Eicher Van. The claimant No.1 was examined as PW1, who is not an eye witness. However, the claimants have produced copy of the FIR (Ex.P-1) and charge sheet (Ex.P-9). The driver of bus has been charge sheeted under Section 337 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The official of insurer has been examined as RW1, who is not an eye witness. 10. Learned counsel for the insurer relying on the IMV report (Ex.P-2) contends that damages have occurred to both the vehicles and that width of the road is 7 metres. Although it is vehement contention of the learned counsel for the insurer that the accident admittedly being a head on collision and damages have occurred to both the vehicles involved in the accident, it is relevant to note that despite a specific defence having been taken that the accident has occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the Eicher Van, the driver of bus has not been examined. The claimants have produced the charge sheet (Ex.P-9), which demonstrates that consequent to the complaint lodged and FIR registered, after investigation the police authorities have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the bus. The claimants have produced the charge sheet (Ex.P-9), which demonstrates that consequent to the complaint lodged and FIR registered, after investigation the police authorities have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the bus. The insurer has also not appointed its own investigator or demonstrated as to how the investigation carried out by the police authorities is in any manner faulty. 11. The Tribunal upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, taking note of the fact that the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the bus, has recorded a finding that the driver of the bus was negligent in causing the accident in question. 12. The insurer has failed in demonstrating that the said finding is, in any manner, erroneous and liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal. Hence, Question No.(i) framed for consideration is answered in the negative. RE. QUESTION No.(ii): 13. The Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased as 51 years. However, it is forthcoming from the voters ID card (Ex.P-8(a)) that date of birth of the deceased is 27.06.1964. The Post Mortem Report (Ex.P-4) also discloses that the age of deceased stated therein is 46 years. In view of the same, the age of the deceased is assessed as 46 years and the multiplier to be applied is ‘13’. 14. The claimants have averred in the claim petition that the deceased was the driver of a Volvo bus and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The claimants have also produced Driving Training Certificate (Ex.P-7) issued by the Volvo India Pvt. Ltd. that the deceased has attended the Driver Orientation Programme at the Driver Training Centre of the company. Learned counsel for the claimants placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeta Kallappa Kadolkar and Ors. v. Div. Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur, 2015 AIR SCW 832 contends that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month keeping in mind the finding recorded in the said judgment. Learned counsel for the claimants placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeta Kallappa Kadolkar and Ors. v. Div. Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur, 2015 AIR SCW 832 contends that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month keeping in mind the finding recorded in the said judgment. It is noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even in the absence of a salary slip/certificate, since the deceased was a skilled in the job (as a carpenter in the said case) and keeping in mind the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Notification by the State of Karnataka, the income of the deceased was assessed in the said case at Rs.12,000/-. Hence, assessment made by the Tribunal of the income deceased at Rs.12,000/- is just and proper. 15. Future prospects is required to be assessed at 25% in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Further the claimant Nos.1 to 3 are the wife, children of the deceased. The respondent No.3 is the mother of deceased, who has also been awarded with 10% of the compensation by the Tribunal. Hence, deduction of 1/4 th made by the Tribunal is just and proper. 16. In view of the aforementioned, the ‘loss of dependency’ is reassessed as (Rs.12,000/- + 25% - 1/4 th x 12 x 13) Rs.17,55,000/- as against Rs.14,04,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 17. The ‘loss of consortium’ is required to be awarded in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Limited vs. Nanu Ram & Others , 2018 ACJ 2782 at Rs.40,000/- for each of the dependents together with increment at 20%. Hence, ‘loss of consortium’ is reassessed at Rs.1,92,000/- (Rs.48,000/- x 4) as against Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 18. The compensation towards ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’ is to be awarded at Rs.15,000/- each together with increment at 20%. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.18,000/- is awarded towards ‘loss of estate’ and a sum of Rs.18,000/- is awarded towards ‘funeral expenses’. 19. In view of compensation awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium’, compensation awarded under ‘loss of love and affection’ is set aside. 20. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.18,000/- is awarded towards ‘loss of estate’ and a sum of Rs.18,000/- is awarded towards ‘funeral expenses’. 19. In view of compensation awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium’, compensation awarded under ‘loss of love and affection’ is set aside. 20. It is stated by the claimants that mother of deceased (respondent No.3) before the Tribunal died on 13.06.2014. Hence, the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal and as reassessed by this Court will be required to be paid to the claimants. 21. Hence, the compensation is reassessed as follows: S. No. Particulars Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Amount Awarded by this Court 1 Loss of dependency 14,04,000/- 17,55,000/- 2 Loss of consortium 20,000/- 1,92,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection 80,000/- -- 4 Loss of estate 60,000/- 18,000/- 5 Funeral expenses 15,000/- 18,000/- Total 15,79,000/- 19,83,000/- 22. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,04,000/- (Rs.19,83,000/- - Rs.15,79,000/-). 23. In view of the aforementioned, the following: ORDER : i. MFA No.3774/2018 is partly allowed. ii. MFA No.5177/2015 is dismissed. iii. The judgment and award dated 26.05.2015 passed in MVC No.7909/2010 by the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-5) at Bengaluru, is hereby modified to the extent stated herein. In all other aspects, the judgment and award of the Tribunal remains unaltered. iv. The claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.19,83,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization as against Rs.15,79,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. v. The claimants will not be entitled for interest on the enhanced compensation of Rs.4,04,000/- for a period 978 days being the delay in filing the appeal, having regard to the order dated 09.04.2025 passed in MFA No.3774/2015. vi. 60% of the compensation together with accrued interest shall be payable to claimant No.1 (wife) and 20% each to claimant Nos.2 and 3 (children). vii. From out of the compensation apportioned to the claimants, 50% of the same shall be digitally released to the claimants and the balance 50% shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit in any nationalized bank of the choice of the claimants for a period of two years insofar as claimant No.1 (wife) is concerned and for a period of three years insofar as claimant Nos.2 and 3 (children) are concerned. The Fixed Deposits together with accrued interest, upon maturity, shall be digitally released to the respective claimants without any specific orders in that regard either from the Tribunal or from this Court. viii. The amount deposited in MFA No.5177/2015 together with the records be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. ix. The insurer shall deposit the balance compensation within six weeks. x. The Registry to draw the modified award accordingly. No costs.