JUDGMENT : Ravi V Hosmani, J. Though matter is listed for admission, with consent of learned counsel appearing for parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. Challenging judgment and award dated 13.04.2023 passed by Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC-Bidar, in MVC no.564/2021, this appeal is filed. 3. Smt.Veerani Nandi, learned counsel submitted that appeal was by claimants for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted at 8.30 a.m., on 20.01.2021, when Smt.Sharnamma was walking by side of road near Ranga Mandir, Bidar, driver of car no. MH-02/CB-9216, drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against her causing grievous injuries. She was taken to hospital for treatment. However, she succumbed to injuries during treatment. Her husband and three children filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against owner and insurer of car. 4. On service, owner did not appear and was placed ex-parte. Insurer opposed claim petition on all grounds. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant no.1 examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-8n and closed his side. Respondent did not adduce evidence. 5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of car by its driver leading to death of Smt.Sharnamma and claimants were held entitled for compensation from insurer as follows: Sl. No. Heads Amount 1 Towards loss of dependency Rs.22,17,600/- 2 Towards medical bills Rs.84,621/- 3 Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- 4 Towards loss of filial consortium Rs.1,20,000/- 5 Towards transportation of dead body, funeral & obsequies ceremony expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.24,77,221/- 6. Dissatisfied with same, claimants were in appeal. It was submitted in claim petition claimants had stated that deceased was working as maid in hospital and earning Rs.17,000/- per month. However, tribunal assessed it at Rs.11,000/- per month, which was on lower side. It was further submitted that tribunal did not award any compensation towards loss of estate and failed to add escalation to award under conventional heads. On said grounds sought for allowing appeal. 7. On other hand Sri Sharanabasappa M.Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.2-insurer, opposed appeal. It was submitted tribunal had awarded just compensation leaving no scope for enhancement. 8. Heard learned counsel. Perused impugned judgment and award. 9. On said grounds sought for allowing appeal. 7. On other hand Sri Sharanabasappa M.Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.2-insurer, opposed appeal. It was submitted tribunal had awarded just compensation leaving no scope for enhancement. 8. Heard learned counsel. Perused impugned judgment and award. 9. From above and since only claimants are in appeal, only point that would arise for consideration is: “Whether claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?” 10. Same is answered partly in affirmative for following reasons: 11. Though claimant stated that deceased was working as maid in hospital and earning Rs.17,000/- per month, same was not substantiated with specific material. In absence, tribunal was justified in assessing it notionally. But notional income for year 2021 being Rs.14,250/- as adopted by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for settlement of cases before Lok Adalath, tribunal was not justified in taking at Rs.11,000/- per month. Same has to be considered at Rs.14,250/- per month. Considering age of deceased at 35 years and number of dependants as 4, tribunal added 40% towards future prospects and deducted 1/4 th towards personal expenses and applied correct multiplier of 16. In view of re- assessment of monthly income, loss of dependency has to be re-computed as follows: (Rs.14,250/- + 40%) x 75% x 12 x 16 = Rs.28,72,800/- 12. Tribunal awarded Rs.84,621/- towards medical expenses against bills produced as death was during treatment. Same is confirmed. 13. Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- to each of claimants towards spousal consortium and filial consortium respectively apart from Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. However, as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others , AIR 2017 SC 5157 , Rs.15,000/- has to be awarded towards loss of estate and 10% added for every three years to award under conventional heads. Since six years have lapsed after decision of Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), 20% has to be added towards escalation. 14. Thus, claimants would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.31,85,421/- as follows: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Towards loss of dependency Rs.28,72,800/- 2 Towards medical bills Rs.84,621/- 3 Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- 4 Towards loss of filial consortium Rs.1,20,000/- 5 Towards transportation of dead body, funeral & obsequies ceremony expenses Rs.15,000/- 6 Loss of estate Rs.15000/- 7 Towards escalation (20% of 1,90,000) Rs.38000/- Total Rs.31,85,421/- 15. Consequently, following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part, judgment and award dated 13.04.2023 passed by Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC-Bidar, in MVC no.564/2021 is modified. ii. Claimants are held entitled for total compensation of Rs.31,85,421/- as against Rs.24,77,221/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum from date of claim petition till deposit. iii. Respondent-insurer to deposit same before Tribunal within six weeks. iv. On deposit, conditions imposed by tribunal for apportionment, deposit and release of compensation would apply as per award of tribunal to enhanced compensation proportionately. Sri Sharanabasappa M.Patil, learned counsel for respondent-insurer is permitted to file vakalath within four weeks.