JUDGMENT :

ALOK ARADHE, J.

1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation against the judgment dated 29.08.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 08.05.2014, the deceased Sunilkumar was proceeding as a pillion rider on Hero Honda Splendor bearing registration No. KA-17/W-6419 belonging to respondent No. 1. When they reached near Inchara house, S.S. Hospital, Jayanagar, Davanagere City, the rider of the vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the road side tree. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

3. The claimant thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and was working as a private dance teacher and earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the aforesaid vehicle. The claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- along with interest.

4. The insurance company filed written statement, in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. It was pleaded that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation on account of delay of a day caused in filing the complaint by the claimant. The age, avocation and income of the deceased was also denied and it was pleaded that the claim of the claimants is exorbitant and excessive.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant examined herself as P.W. 1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex. P1 to Ex. P9. The respondents examined one Mallikarjuna M.H. as R.W. 1 and got exhibited one document namely Ex. R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle. 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. 8,03,000/- 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 claimant submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- 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. 4,500/- 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. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation. Admittedly, the claimants have not produced any evid