JUDGMENT :

Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. The present appeals are filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act' for short) calling in question the common judgment and award dated 17.02.2018 passed in MVC No. 427/2015 and MVC No. 425/2015 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Gangavathi (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short) seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the appeals are as under:

It is stated that on 12.05.2015 at about 5.00 a.m. when Basamma along with Roopadevi and others were traveling in Tata Sumo vehicle bearing No. KA.26/M-5959 from Chitradurga to Hosapete, they met with an accident near Amalapur village cross, Kudligi, Tq: Ballari due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. TN-28/M-8600 by respondent No. 1. In the said accident, Basamma and Roopadevi sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

It is further stated that the deceased were working as Field Investigator in Vimarsh Development Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru and were earning Rs. 16,500/- p.m. thereby contributing to the family. Due to their death, the claimants being dependants have lost bread winner of the family. Hence, in MFA No. 103490/2018, the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 being mother and sister of deceased Basamma filed case in MVC No. 427/2015 and in MFA No. 103491/2018 the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 being parents and appellant No. 3 being sister of deceased Roopadevi filed case in MVC No. 425/2015 under Section 166 of M.V. Act for claiming compensation.

3. The Tribunal on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record allowed the claim petitions in part and granted total compensation of Rs. 8,86,000/- in MVC No. 427/2015 and Rs. 9,44,000/- in MVC No. 425/2015 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization by directing the respondent Insurance Company to pay the compensation.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellants-claimants submitted that the deceased were working as Field Investigator in Vimarsh Development Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru and were getting salary of Rs. 16,500/- p.m. BUT, the Tribunal had considered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- p.m. only and has not added income towards future prospects. Further, he submitted that as per the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation, whereas the Tribunal has awarded lesser compensation.

5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurer submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in both the claim petitions is correct and proper and hence there is no need to interfere with the same and accordingly sought to dismiss the appeals.

6. In the present cases, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 8,16,000/- in MVC No. 427/2015 and Rs. 8,64,000/- in MVC No. 425/2015 towards loss of dependency by adopting notional income at Rs. 8,000/- p.m. Exs. P11 and P16 are the Working Certificates of deceased Basamma and Roopadevi respectively issued by Vimarsh Development Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru, wherein it is mentioned that for the purpose of work contract for National Family Health Survey-4, the deceased Basamma has been selected as Field Supervisor/Field Investigator/Health Investigator and deceased Roopadevi as Field Investigator for conducting National Family Health Survey, sponsored by the Government of India and accordingly the same was accepted by the deceased. As per Exs. P11 and P16 - Working Certificates/Work Contract, the monthly remuneration is mentioned as Rs. 13,500/- + Rs. 3,000/- towards Dearness Allowance. Therefore, Exs. P11 and P16-Working Certificates/Work Contract prove t