1. Heard. With consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

2. The appellant-insurance company herein has challenged the judgment and Award dated 27th October, 2015 in MACP No. 4 of 2014. By the impugned judgment and Award, the Claims Tribunal, Ratnagiri, has awarded compensation of Rs.18,27,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of application till realization.

3. The respondents no. 1 is the widow and the respondents no.2 and 3 are the children of Sadanand Mule, who died in a motor vehicle accident. These respondents (hereinafter referred to as claimant nos.1, 2 and 3), claimed that on 26th November, 2012 Sadanand Mule was traveling from Marleshwar to Ganpatipule by his Maruti Omni vehicle no, MH 08/ C-7302. When he reached Nivali Ghat, a Chevrolet car bearing no. MH 14/CS 2412 came from the opposite side at a fast speed and dashed against the Maruti Omni. Sadanand Mule suffered serious injuries and remained under treatment. On 27.12.2012 he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said motor vehicle accident. The claimants alleged that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.5. Kunal Nikare, the driver of Chevrolet car. They further claimed that prior to the accident Sadanad Mule was earning annual income of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Being the dependents of the deceased Sadanand Mule, the claimants filed a petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the driver, owner and the insurer of the offending car claiming total compensation of Rs.51,42,790/-.

4. The respondent no. 5 did not contest the petition. The appellant/insurance company and the respondent no.4 owner filed their written statement and denied the claim. They denied the involvement of the vehicle in the accident and further claimed that the deceased was himself responsible for the accident. They also denied the income of the deceased and disputed their liability to pay the compensation.

5. The tribunal after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties held that the death of Sadanand Mule was due to the injuries sustained in the accident, caused due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.5. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the tribunal held that the claimants had not proved the income of the deceased. The tribunal therefore estimated the income of the deceased as Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. The deceased was 49 years of age. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court, in Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh & ors. 2013 ACJ 1403 the tribunal added 30% towards future prospects. Upon deducting 1/3rd towards personal expense of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 13 the tribunal computed compensation of Rs.11,27,000/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 5,66,000/- and Rs. 8,800/towards actual medical expenses and ambulance charges. In addition, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal has thus awarded total compensation of Rs. 18,27,000/-.

6. The appellant/insurance company has basically questioned the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in the absence of any evidence, the learned Tribunal was not justified in fixing the income of the deceased as Rs.1 lakh. She contends that the compensation awarded for loss of dependency is excessive and exorbitant. She further contends that in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (20107) ACJ 2700, compensation towards loss of future prospects can only be granted on the basis of established income, i.e the definite income earned by the deceased and not on the basis of the notional income. She contends that having failed to establish the definite income earned by the deceased; the claimants are not entitled for addition of any amount towards future p