1. This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the appellants - claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 23.12.2015 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Udupi, in MVC.No.269/2014, seeking enhancement of amount of compensation.

2. Parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal.

3. The facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that, on 18.01.2014, at about 3.15 p.m., when the deceased Harish Devadiga was riding his motorcycle from Karkala side to Belman side, when he reached near Belman School, another motorbike bearing registration No.KA-12/K-1322 which was driven by its rider namely, respondent No.1 in high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid impact, the accident occurred and the deceased sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to the hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries.

4. Thereupon, the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the) on the ground that the deceased as on the date of the accident was aged about 35 years, working as Mason and was earning Rs.650/- per day. It was pleaded that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending motorbike by its rider. Accordingly, the claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.36,15,000/- along with the interest at the rate of 12% p.a.

5. In response to the service of notice, both respondents appeared through their respective counsel and filed the written statement, in which, the averments made in the claim petition were denied. Respondent No.2 Insurance Company disputed the manner in which the accident occurred, the age and income of the deceased. It was also pleaded that the rider of the offending motorcycle did not hold any valid and effective driving license.

6. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Claims Tribunal framed issues and recorded the evidence of the witnesses.

7. The claimants, in order to prove their case, claimant No.1 was examined herself as PW.1 and one eyewitness namely, Sridhara as PW.2. and got marked 7 documents namely, Exs.P1 to P7. The respondents did not examine any witness but produced insurance policy, which was marked as Ex.R.1.

8. The Claims Tribunal inter alia on the basis of the evidence on record held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending motorbike. It was further held that the claimants are entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs.12,47,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants claimants submitted that the Claims Tribunal has grossly erred in taking the notional income of the deceased only at Rs.6,000/- p.m., whereas, it ought to have taken at Rs.8,500/- p.m. and that the amount of compensation awarded is on the lower side.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for interference.

11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.

12. The only issue that arises for our consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

13. Admittedly, the accident has taken place in the year 2014. The claimants have not adduced any documentary proof with regard to the income of the deceased. Therefore, the income of the deceased has to be assessed as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.8,500/- p.m. In view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others AIR 2017 SC 5157 [LQ/SC/2017/1578] , 40% has to be added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects. Thus, the monthly income would arrive at Rs.11,900/-. Out of the said amount of Rs.11,900/-, if 1/3rd is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.7,933/-. To the said monthly income of the deceased, the multiplier 16 is taken into account as the age of the deceased was 35 years at the time of the accident. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,23,136/- on account of loss of dependency.

14. Further, the claimants are the widow, minor son and the mother of the deceased. In view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram reported in 2018 SCC 1546 , they are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,20,000/- on account of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. In addition, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- under loss of estate and funeral expenses.

15. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.16,73,136/- as compensation and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the payment is made.

16. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

17. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.