JUDGMENT : C M Joshi, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and award in MVC No.412/2014, dated 17.01.2017 by the Senior Civil Judge And Member Additional M.A.C.T, Kundapura, whereby an award for a sum of Rs.5,42,690/- was made in favour of the petitioners. The appellants- claimants have approached this Court in MFA No.6685/2017 seeking enhancement and the Insurance Company has approached this Court in MFA.Crob.No.130/2018. 3. The factual aspects of the matter is that on 03.09.2008 at about 07.30 a.m., the deceased Manju Poojary was proceeding on his two wheeler from Uppunda Shala Bagilu side towards Ambagilu. A goods auto- rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-20-A-8463 owned by respondent No.1 and driven by her driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the back side of the two wheeler of the deceased Manju Poojary resulting in his fall on the side of the road and he was shifted to K.M.C. Hospital, Manipal. While he was inpatient, he succumbed to the injuries. A case was registered against the driver of the auto-rickshaw by the concerned Police and ultimately a charge- sheet was filed against the driver of the auto- rickshaw. The claimants who are the wife and children of the deceased filed a claim petition in MVC No.412/2014 before the Senior Civil Judge and Member Additional M.A.C.T, Kundapura. It is their contention that the deceased Manju Poojary was working as a coolie and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and they had spent huge amount towards the medical expenses and as such they may be awarded reasonable and just compensation from the owner and insurer of the goods auto-rickshaw. 4. The petition was resisted by respondent No.2 -Insurance Company contending that though the vehicle was covered by the policy, the terms and conditions of the policy were violated by the driver of the auto-rickshaw and as such, the liability has to be fastened upon respondent No.1. Inter-alia it was also contended that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also. They also denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased and sought for dismissal of the petition as against them. 5. On the basis of the above contentions, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues and petitioner No.5 was examined as PW1 and one witness was examined as PW2. They also denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased and sought for dismissal of the petition as against them. 5. On the basis of the above contentions, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues and petitioner No.5 was examined as PW1 and one witness was examined as PW2. Exhibits P1 to P6 were marked in evidence. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent No.2, however the policy was marked as Exhibit R1. Respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal and as such, she was placed ex-parte. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,42,690/- under the following heads: SL.NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN RS.) 1 Loss of dependency 4,32,000/- 2 Consortium 25,000/- 3 Love and affection 25,000/- 4 Loss of estate 25,000/- 5 Conveyance and funeral expenses 20,000/- 6 Medical expenses 15,690/- TOTAL 5,42,690/- 6. While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. 7. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court in MFA No.6685/2017 and respondent No.2 -Insurance Company has approached this Court in MFA Crob.No.130/2018. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants submit that the Tribunal has erred in holding the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, but it should have been taken at Rs.10,000/- per month. He also submits that under conventional heads viz., towards loss of love and affection, the Tribunal has not followed the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others , 2017 (16) SCC 680 . Therefore, he seeks reassessment of the compensation amount. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has not considered the age of the deceased in an appropriate manner and there is no clinching evidence to show the age of the deceased. He submits that some of the petitioners are married and other sons are major and therefore, they cannot be dependents and as such, they are not entitled for the compensation. He also submits that the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month is on the higher side and it should have been less than Rs.5,000/- as is considered by various decisions by this Court. He also submits that the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month is on the higher side and it should have been less than Rs.5,000/- as is considered by various decisions by this Court. Therefore, he submits that the quantum of the compensation is on the higher side and the same be reassessed. 10. Perusal of the records would reveal that the petitioners had produced the ration card of the family of the petitioners, which shows the age of the deceased as 55 years and the PM report had recorded the age as 51 years. The Tribunal in paragraph No.16 of the impugned judgment appreciates the evidence in the form of the ration card and the PM report and comes to the conclusion that the age of the deceased has to be taken between 56 to 60 years. It is pertinent to note that the alleged ration card, even though a copy was made available was not marked before the Tribunal. Therefore, what was available was only the testimony of PW-1 i.e., son of the deceased, who stated that his mother was 10 years younger to the father. However, the reasoning of the Tribunal, which had the advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses, cannot be interfered with when it comes to the oral testimony of the witnesses. It is evident that there is no conclusive proof in respect of the age of the deceased. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to disturb the reasoning given by the Tribunal in this regard. Nowhere the wife of the deceased has stated that she was elder to the deceased. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the age of the deceased was between 56 to 60 years and as such, the multiplier to be applied is 9' cannot be disturbed. 11. Coming to the income of the deceased, it is pertinent to note that in the absence of any material to establish the income, notional income has to be assessed. The Guidelines issued by the KSLSA for the purpose of settlement of the disputes before the Lok-adalat prescribes a notional income of Rs.4,500/- for the year 2008. Such Guidelines issued by the KSLSA have been held, in umpteen number of decisions by this Court, to be in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. The Guidelines issued by the KSLSA for the purpose of settlement of the disputes before the Lok-adalat prescribes a notional income of Rs.4,500/- for the year 2008. Such Guidelines issued by the KSLSA have been held, in umpteen number of decisions by this Court, to be in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the wages of the deceased have to be taken as Rs.4,500/- only. 12. The next contention of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company is that some of the petitioners are not dependents as they were married and aged major. It is necessary to note that it is not only the dependency which has to be considered, but it is the heirship of the parties under the deceased. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Birender and others , (2020) 11 SCC 356 has held as below: "14. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the legal representative concerned was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs 1,00,000 and Rs 1,50,000 per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependent on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years." 13. In view of the above, the compensation has to be reassessed as below: 14. Since there are 5 petitioners, 1/4 th has to be deducted towards the 'personal expenses' of the deceased and also by considering the future prospects of the deceased at 10%. Hence, the quantum of compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency' is calculated as Rs.(4,500 + 450) X 12 X 3/4 X 9 = Rs.4,00,950/- by adopting future prospects at 10% and personal expenses of deceased at 1/4 th. 15. Hence, the quantum of compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency' is calculated as Rs.(4,500 + 450) X 12 X 3/4 X 9 = Rs.4,00,950/- by adopting future prospects at 10% and personal expenses of deceased at 1/4 th. 15. The petitioners are also entitled for a sum of Rs.44,000/- each, towards 'loss of love and affection' and therefore, a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- (Rs.44,000 x 5) is awarded. 16. The petitioners are also entitled for a sum of Rs.33,000/- under the conventional head of 'funeral expenses' and 'loss of estate'. 17. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,690/- towards the 'medical expenses' which is as per the medical bills and cannot be interfered with. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.6,69,640/-. 18. The Tribunal has awarded interest of 6% per annum, which is also proper and correct. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for the modified compensation under different heads as below: PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN RS.) Loss of dependency 4,00,950/- Loss of love and affection 2,20,000/- Conveyance and funeral expenses and loss of estate 33,000/- Medical expenses 15,690/- TOTAL Less awarded by Tribunal 6,69,640/- 5,42,690/- Enhancement Rs.1,26,950/- 19. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal in MFA No.6685/2017 deserves to be allowed-in-part and in MFA Crob.No.130/2018 deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal in MFA No.6685/2017 is allowed-in-part and in MFA Crob.No.130/2018 is dismissed. (ii) The petitioners are entitled for an additional sum of Rs.1,26,950/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit. (iii) Petitioner No.1 is entitled for 60% of the compensation amount and petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are entitled for 10% each of the total compensation. (iv) The fixed deposit and release shall be as ordered by the Tribunal.