JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J.—This is an appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act and has been directed against the award of compensation made by the second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal of Puri. 2. On 31.3.1973, around 3 p.m. a motor mechanic by name Asoka Kumar Ram, then aged about 24 years, was returning from Balugaon to Bhubaneswar on a scooter. Behind him on the scooter was seated P.W. 2, the helper of a truck bearing registration number O.R.U. 3729 which had gone out of order and for the repair of the same, the deceased had been brought to Balugaon from Bhubaneswar. On the National Highway No. 5 between Khurda and Balugaon and near about the village Kuradhamal, a truck bearing registration number O.R.U. 5285 was found proceeding towards Khurda. The scooter of the deceased was behind the said truck. Near about Kuradhamal, the truck made way by going to the left of the road to allow passage for an on coming truck from the opposite side. The on coming truck passed and thereafter the truck bearing registration number O.R.U. 5285 again came to the middle of the road. At that point, the scooter dashed on the right side of the truck and both the deceased and also P.W. 2 were thrown away along with the scooter. P.W. 2 sustained minor injuries while the injuries on the deceased grew fatal. He had been first removed to the Khurda hospital by P.W. 2 and latter he was taken to the hospital at Cuttack where he succumbed to his injuries. According to the claimants the deceased had blown horn and the driver of the truck was aware of the passing of the scooter by the side of the truck, yet being negligent the truck driver still moved his vehicle to the right of the road as a result of which the unfortunate incident took place. 3. The deceased was a young bachelor and the claimants are his parents. At the time of the accident, the father was 48 while the mother was 41. They claimed compensation of Rs. 75,000/-. 4. Both the owner and the Insurer entered contest. There was no dispute that the vehicle was duly insured with the insurer. Their stand was that there was no negligence on the part of the truck driver and no compensation was payable. At any rate, the amount claimed as compensation was excessive. They claimed compensation of Rs. 75,000/-. 4. Both the owner and the Insurer entered contest. There was no dispute that the vehicle was duly insured with the insurer. Their stand was that there was no negligence on the part of the truck driver and no compensation was payable. At any rate, the amount claimed as compensation was excessive. 5. Before the Tribunal, three witnesses were examined on the side of the claimants and the record of the criminal case including the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector were exhibited. The first claimant examined himself as P.W. 1. P.W. 2, as already said, was a helper of the truck which had gone out for repairs and P.W. 3 was a co-worker of the deceased in a garage of Bhubaneswar. The Tribunal came to hold that the accident took place partly on account of the negligence of the driver of the truck and partly on account of the negligence of the deceased-motor cyclist. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it found that the Appellants were entitled to an amount of Rs. 12,000/- but on account of contributory negligence of the deceased, it reduced it by 50 per cent and fixed the compensation at Rs. 6,000/-. It directed the insurer to meet the liability of compensation. This appeal is by the claimants asking for enhanced compensation. 6. Inspite of notice, the owner of the truck has not appeared and the Insurer has appeared through Mr. Roy. 7. Mr. Patnaik for the claimants contends that the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal is grossly low and is not appropriate in view of the evidence on record. He next contends that the finding of contributory negligence is without justification and at any rate, even if the deceased had contributed to the incident, his responsibility could not be apportioned at 50 percent. 8. As already noticed, the claimants were 48 and 41 years respectively at the time of the accident. Mr. Patnaik maintains that in the absence of any material evidence, there was no justification for the learned Tribunal to determine the longevity for a further term of 10 years. This is not a case where superannuation is in issue. The deceased died at the age of only 24. He had a long life before him and he would certainly have maintained his own parents until their death. This is not a case where superannuation is in issue. The deceased died at the age of only 24. He had a long life before him and he would certainly have maintained his own parents until their death. Taking judicial notice of the fact that the longevity on an average of a man in this country has now increased and it would be reasonable to accept that the claimants should live beyond the age of 65, I am prepared to hold that they would be entitled to compensation at least till that age. Thus, the claimant No. 1 father is entitled to compensation for 17 years while the mother, claimant No. 2, would have it for 24 years. On the average, therefore, the compensation should be admissible for 20 years. Even allowing some reduction for uncertainty of life, I would put it at a minimum of 16 years. The compensation, therefore, should have been calculated for a term of 16 years. 9. The father--P.W. 1 has categorically stated that by the time of death, the deceased was getting Rs. 350/- per month. P.W 3, the colleague of the deceased, has also categorically stated that the monthly remuneration of the deceased was Rs. 350/-. There has been no question in cross examination to P.W.3. There was, therefore, no material for the learned Tribunal to hold that the remuneration of the deceased at the time of death was Rs. 300/-. The unchallenged evidence of Rs. 350/- should have been accepted. The deceased was a bachelor and therefore, his own expenses would not have been much. The evidence of P.W. 1 that the contribution to the parents was Rs. 200/- a month should not have been disbelieved. In that view of the matter, on an average the deceased must be taken to have been contributing Rs. 2,400/- a year. For the total period of 16 years, such amount would have worked out at Rs. 38,400/-. Here again, keeping the normal consideration in view, I am prepared to scale down the compensation by 1/6th. It would then work out at Rs. 32,000/-. 10. Now comes the point of contributory negligence for consideration. P.W.2 is the only eye witness. Though he said that the deceased had blown the horn, there is no clear evidence that the truck driver was aware of the scooter trying to cross the truck. It would then work out at Rs. 32,000/-. 10. Now comes the point of contributory negligence for consideration. P.W.2 is the only eye witness. Though he said that the deceased had blown the horn, there is no clear evidence that the truck driver was aware of the scooter trying to cross the truck. In cross examination, P.W.2 has stated that the truck in question moved to the left of the road to allow the on coming truck to pass. After the truck had passed, the truck in question moved to the right with a view to come to the centre of the road. I am not prepared to accept Mr. Patnaik's submission that even when the driver of the truck knew that the scooter was passing the truck still moved to the right which led to the collision. Though a code of conduct has been evolved for safety of the people using the road, it is still the duty of every person who uses the road to be careful about one's own safety. Self-preservation is the natural instinct and law does not work against it. A duty is, therefore, cast on every person using the road to use it in such a way that he protects himself and simultaneously protects others. When the road is used with such an attitude, the social interest is best protected and every person using the road is in a position to exercise his right. The motor-cyclist was, therefore, bound to ensure that the truck would not move to the right after the on coming truck had passed. There was no scope for any assumption. Mr. Patnaik maintains that as the owner had not examined the driver who could have been most capable to either affirm or deny his knowing about the passing of the scooter on the right side of the truck at that moment, an adverse inference should be drawn. In the facts of the case, I do not think I should do so. It is true that the truck driver had also an obligation to ensure when he was moving to the centre of the road that there was no vehicle following it which might be trying to negotiate in view of the fact that the truck had been getting on to the left side of the road. It is true that the truck driver had also an obligation to ensure when he was moving to the centre of the road that there was no vehicle following it which might be trying to negotiate in view of the fact that the truck had been getting on to the left side of the road. The finding of the learned Tribunal, in the circumstances, that there was contributory negligence should not be disturbed. I am inclined, on the facts of the case, to hold that the truck should have 60 percent responsibility while the deceased should be assigned 40 percent of the negligence. 11. The compensation determined, therefore, should be scaled down by 40 percent. The net compensation, in the circumstances, work out at Rs. 19,200/-. I propose to further scale it down to a round figure of Rs. 18,000/-. I accordingly enhance the compensation from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 18,000/-. Since it is within the statutory liability of the insurer, I direct that the said amount be paid by the insurance company. On the compensation now determined, interest from the date of application would run at the rate of 6 percent per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. The Appellants would be entitled to costs of this appeal which I assess at rupees two hundred.