JUDGMENT :

Hemant Chandangoudar, J.

1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation against the judgment dated 24.05.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 13.02.2016, when the deceased Prakasha was proceeding on his motor bike on Gundlupet - Calicut Road, a Innova car bearing Registration No. KA-51-MB-4634, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motor bike of the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

3. The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident and was doing mason work and was earning a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the Innova car by its driver. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,31,50,000/- along with interest.

4. The Insurance Company filed written statement stating that the respondent No. 1 - driver was not holding effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident and as such committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy. It was further pleaded that the jurisdictional police have not forwarded the relevant documents to the insurer within thirty days as required under Section 158(6) of M V Act. Hence, the Insurance Company prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No. 1 examined herself as PW-1 and another witness i.e. Venkatesh s/o Marisiddaiah was examined as PW 2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex. P1 to Ex. P6. The respondents neither adduced any oral evidence nor any documentary evidence. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Innova car by its driver. It was further held, that as a result of aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 10,88,400/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

6. Learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 7,000/- per month and in any case, the same ought to have been taken as per the guidelines framed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not making an addition to the tune of 40% to the income of the deceased on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 'National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others': AIR 2017 SC 5157. It is further submitted that the sums awarded under the heads 'loss of consortium' and 'funeral expenses' are on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that no evidence has been adduced by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased before the Tribunal and that the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased notionally at Rs. 7,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

7. We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

8. The only question which arises for our consideration in this ap