JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the award dated 15th April, 1982 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in an accident which took place on 4th November, 1979. 2. Ramesh Chand alias Chhaganlal met with an accident while driving the motor cycle No. RSL 5457 at about 3.45 p.m. on 4th November, 1979. His younger brother Sualal was sitting behind him on the motor cycle. They started their journey from village Mamoria and they were on the road of Saranpura. There is national highway Jaipur-Ajmer where this road joins. 3. There is controversy about the actual aspect of accident but, it is common ground that the truck No. MPU 6133 and this motor cycle collided. Chhaganlal died and Sualal sustained injuries. Sualal got fracture of radius bone. Two different claim petitions were filed, but they were consolidated and therefore, a joint appeal has been filed from the common judgment. 4. The Tribunal found that sixty per cent of the negligence can be attributed to the deceased Chhaganlal and remaining to the truck driver. 5. Before this Court, in the present appeal, Mr. Surana has challenged this finding of the Tribunal regarding the apportionment of the negligence to the truck driver and the motor cycle owner cum driver. According to him, the truck driver was wholly responsible because the accident took place at a place which was nearer to the main road and the truck coming from behind entered at the inter-junction of the road and knocked down the deceased motor cycle on the kucha road. In the alternative, Mr. Surana, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, argued that even if it is assumed that the motor cycle had entered the main road then it was the responsibility of the truck driver to slow down the truck. In support of this contention, Mr. Surana relied upon the decision of this Court in Sudershan Puri v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, 1983 ACJ 489 (Raj) , wherein it was held that the bus coming at a fast speed should be slowed down on the intersection of the roads. It was observed that when the scooter was being driven at a slow speed and the bus driver did not stop after the accident and drove away at a considerable speed, then the responsibility for the accident is of the bus driver. It was observed that when the scooter was being driven at a slow speed and the bus driver did not stop after the accident and drove away at a considerable speed, then the responsibility for the accident is of the bus driver. It was also held that, at the intersection of the roads, the bus driver should not enter the intersection or junction unless he makes sure that he would not thereby endanger any other person. 6. Mr. H.M. Bhargava, the learned Counsel for the insurance company, pointed out that the principles laid down in the above decision of this Court are not at all applicable because in the present case, the motor cycle driver entered from the side road at a high speed and dashed against the truck. Clause 7 of the Driving Regulations contained in the Tenth Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, was read over in this connection. 7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties on this aspect of the case and read the relevant evidence also, which was referred to by the learned Counsel. The award of the Tribunal is detailed one in this respect and even I feel that if the entire evidence is discussed again, I am in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that, on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties, it is proved that the accident did not take place in the rough (kucha) or away from the main road but, on the main road when the motor cycle dashed against the truck with high speed. In view of this the apportionment of the liability in the ratio of 60: 40 appears to be justified and calls for no interference in the present appeal. 8. Mr. Surana then tried to argue that the income assessed is also not correct. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the evidence referred to by the learned Counsel and the findings of the Tribunal. Here again, I am in agreement with the Tribunal that, the income of the deceased assessed at Rs. 500/- appears to be just and proper and further the finding that, the claimants should have got financial benefits at Rs. 400/- out of it, is just and fair on a proper appreciation of evidence produced by the parties. 9. Here again, I am in agreement with the Tribunal that, the income of the deceased assessed at Rs. 500/- appears to be just and proper and further the finding that, the claimants should have got financial benefits at Rs. 400/- out of it, is just and fair on a proper appreciation of evidence produced by the parties. 9. However, I am in agreement with the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the Tribunal has committed a mistake in calculating the compensation by adopting the multiplier of 15 years' while the deceased was at the time of the accident of 31 years of age and the average expectancy of life during these years is 70 years as held by this Court in a series of cases and also by other High Courts so also by the Apex Court of this country. In view of this, the Tribunal should have allowed the compensation by multiplying the amount of expectancy of income with 25 years, at least. 10. By this modification, the amount of compensation is increased by Rs. 48,000/- and out of this, after deducting 60% on account of contributory negligence, the claimants would get benefit of Rs. 21,600/- also in addition to Rs. 33,800/- and in total it would come to Rs. 55,400/-. 11. So far as the claim of the injured Sualal is concerned, the amount allowed is Rs. 1,000/-. It has been found by the Tribunal that he sustained a fracture and this has been proved by Dr. Brij Vallabh (PW 10). Mr. Surana has relied upon the judgment of this Court, in support of his contention, in Hanumant Singh v. Sharif-Ud-Din, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 74 of 1979; decided on 25.8.1984 , wherein, according to him, in similar circumstances, the compensation of Rs. 4,000/- was increased to Rs. 10,500/-. Applying the principles laid down in Hanumant Singh v. Sharif-Ud-Din I am inclined to increase this compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. 12. The result of the above discussion is, that this appeal is partly allowed and the compensation allowed by the Tribunal vide the impugned award is increased as follows: (1) Sualal, the injured-Appellant would get Rs. 5,000/- instead of Rs. 1,000/-, as compensation. (2) The other claimants, who are wife, son, daughter and parents of the deceased Chhaganlal would get Rs. 55,400/- in all instead of Rs. 5,000/- instead of Rs. 1,000/-, as compensation. (2) The other claimants, who are wife, son, daughter and parents of the deceased Chhaganlal would get Rs. 55,400/- in all instead of Rs. 33,800/- after consequent change in the apportionment of the above amount which would be as under: Rs. Kamla w/o Ramesh Chand and Chhaganlal 25,894/- Laxman s/o Ramesh Chand 11,475/- Shakuntla d/o Ramesh Chand 11,475/- Bhonrilal f/o Ramesh Chand 3,278/- Lichhma m/o Ramesh Chand 3,278/- __________ 55,400/- __________ 13. In all other respects, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed so far as the grant of interest is also concerned. 14. The above amount of compensation would be paid by the Respondents, within 3 months from today, failing which the interest would be at the rate of 12% from the date of the application till the date of realisation. The liability of the insurance company New India Assurance Company, Jaipur would be limited to Rs. 50,000/- in case of the claimants, Mrs. Kamla, Laxman, Shakuntla who are the claimants for the death of Chhaganlal. So far as the claim of Sualal is concerned, the Respondent company would be liable to pay the entire amount. 15. The Appellants would get cost of Rs. 500/-from the Respondents.Appeal partly allowed. *******