JUDGMENT 1. - This Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed against the award dated February 18, 1987, in case No. 255 of 1984, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur. 2. It will suffice to state for the purpose of this appeal that on June 23,1984, an accident took place on Jaipur Amber Road, while deceased Rafiq Ahmed was going on his scooter No. RRB 4091 towards Amber at about 6 p.m. in the evening, along with his son, aged two years and Sayed Ahmad, who was sitting on the pillion. The accident took place near the crossing of road, turning towards Ramgarh. It is alleged that the truck came from Ramgarh Road side coming at fast speed and struck with the scooter on the wrong side. As a result of the impact the deceased Rafiq and his child died on the spot. The truck driver ran away from the site of the accident. A claim petition was filed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after recording evidence of both the parties and hearing the learned Counsel awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 68,000/- to the Appellants. 3. The contention of Mr. H.M. Bhargava, learned Counsel for the Appellants, is that the Tribunal has seriously erred in holding that the deceased was liable for contributory negligence on account of which 50% of amount was deducted from the total award of Rs. 1,36,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. It is also contended that it has come in evidence that the deceased was earning Rs. 50/- per day as he was 'nagina saj, but in spite of this the Tribunal in its wisdom has kept the income of the deceased as Rs. 20/- per day only. Out of this amount ⅓rd was deducted by the Tribunal on account of personal expenses of the deceased and Rs. 400/- was kept as amount of dependency per month. It is further contended that the deceased was young man of 26 years. He was doing private business of his own and the courts in India have been taking 70 years as normal span of life. However, the Tribunal applied multiplier of only 25 years, keeping the age as 51 years only. It is further urged that the multiplier should be applied taking the span of the life of deceased as 70 years. He was doing private business of his own and the courts in India have been taking 70 years as normal span of life. However, the Tribunal applied multiplier of only 25 years, keeping the age as 51 years only. It is further urged that the multiplier should be applied taking the span of the life of deceased as 70 years. It is further stressed by the learned Counsel that the Appellant No. 1, Rajia, was a young lady of 22 years at the time of accident but the Tribunal has awarded only a token amount of Rs. (Sic.) as consortium, which amount is rather too low, keeping in view the age of the widow. Mr. S.C. Srivastava, learned Counsel, appears for Respondent No. 4, United India Insurance Company. He frankly stated that as a matter of right he cannot address the court but with a view to assist the court, he was permitted to address on the point of contributory negligence. The learned Counsel pointed out the site plan to stress that the deceased scooter driver was equally responsible for causing the accident. He further stressed that the regulations 6 and 7 apply as much to the drivers of heavy vehicle as to light vehicles like scooter, car. 4. I have heard both the learned Counsel and also perused the award of the Tribunal and documents and statements of the witnesses. AW 1 Rajia, the widow of the deceased, has stated that the deceased gave her 40 to 45 rupees as his earning per day. AW 3, Sayed Ahmad, is an eye-witness who was on the pillion of the scooter at the time of unfortunate accident. He has stated that the scooter was coming at a speed of 10 to 15 km., a truck came at a high speed of 70-80 km. from the side of Ramgarh Road and suddenly struck the scooter, which resulted in accident. The truck stopped at a distance of 20-22' after causing the accident in which the deceased and infant child were killed on the spot. The deceased and his infant child were dragged to some distance by the truck. The truck came on the wrong side and struck the scooter. He has denied in his cross-examination that the back portion of the truck dragged the scooter. AW 4, Mahmood Yusuf, is witness with whom the deceased worked as 'nagina saj. The deceased and his infant child were dragged to some distance by the truck. The truck came on the wrong side and struck the scooter. He has denied in his cross-examination that the back portion of the truck dragged the scooter. AW 4, Mahmood Yusuf, is witness with whom the deceased worked as 'nagina saj. He has stated that the deceased was a hardworking person and earning 40 to 50 rupees every day. He has also stated that looking to his hard work, he was capable of earning Rs. 100-150/- per day after some time. AW 5, Rood Mal, is head constable, who was on duty at the time of accident and was an eyewitness to the same. He has stated that the truck came from Ramgarh side and struck scooter in its back. He has also stated that the truck dragged the scooter to a distance of 20-25'. He has also stated that the accident took place on account of fault of the truck driver. In cross-examination he has denied that the truck was coming at a slow speed on its own side. AW 7 is Babu Khan, with whom the deceased has worked from time to time, who has stated that the deceased earned Rs. 40-50/- per day. Thus from the evidence of the income of the deceased, it can be seen that the various witnesses have placed his income between Rs. 40-50/- per day. AW 1, the widow of the deceased, has stated that he gave her Rs. 40-45/- per day. The learned Counsel for the Appellants gives out that the Appellant maintained scooter also. It can, therefore, be seen that a person who maintains a scooter and has to support a family of ten persons, including his children, wife, sisters, brothers and mother cannot be expected to do so from an income of only Rs. 20/- per day. I, therefore, take Rs. 1,000/- to be monthly income of the deceased person. After deducting V3rd for his personal expenses the dependency amount comes to Rs. 670/- per month. The deceased was 26 years old at the time of accident. He was doing his private work and in any case would have worked looking to his young age and attitude of hard work upto 60 years. After deducting V3rd for his personal expenses the dependency amount comes to Rs. 670/- per month. The deceased was 26 years old at the time of accident. He was doing his private work and in any case would have worked looking to his young age and attitude of hard work upto 60 years. It will, therefore, be appropriate to apply multiplier of 34 years to reach the figure of compensation to be awarded on account of loss of income to the claimants. In this way the Appellants shall be entitled to Rs. 670X12X34=2,73,360/- under this head. Appellant No. 1 Rajia was young lady of 22 years age at the time of accident when all of a sudden she lost her husband and the complexion of her life completely changed. She was a young lady having bright future to live along with her husband but in this unfortunate accident, she has not only lost her husband but only son also which they had. In the facts and circumstances, I, therefore, award amount of Rs. 15,000/-towards loss of consortium to the young widow, Appellant No. 1. 5. Coming to the deduction from the compensation awarded to the Appellant on account of contributory negligence, which has been taken to be 50%, it will be worthwhile to see the regulation Nos. 6 and 7 as laid down in Schedule X in the Act. The regulation No. 6 lays down that the driver of a motor vehicle shall slow down when approaching a road intersection, a road junction or a road corner, and shall not enter any such intersection or junction until he has become aware that he may do so without endangering the safety of persons thereon. 6. Regulation No. 7 lays down that a driver of the motor vehicle shall, on entering a road intersection, if the road entered is a main road designated as such, give way to the vehicles proceeding along that road, and in any other case give way to all traffic approaching the intersection on his right hand. 7. Exh. 1 is the site plan regarding the accident. It shows that the accident has taken place at 'A' and according to the evidence the truck struck the scooter in its back. This is also stated so by AW 5 Roodmal, the head constable, standing on duty at that time. 7. Exh. 1 is the site plan regarding the accident. It shows that the accident has taken place at 'A' and according to the evidence the truck struck the scooter in its back. This is also stated so by AW 5 Roodmal, the head constable, standing on duty at that time. Thereafter it is also indicated in the site plan that the truck stopped at a distance of about 25 ft. from the site of accident and dragged the scooter and deceased along with it. Therefore, it is evident that the scooter was going on its proper side on the main road when the truck came and struck it in the back on account of which the accident took place. The truck was entering the intersection and came on the main road from Ramgarh Road side. Regulation 6, as seen above, lays down that while approaching the intersection the driver of a motor vehicle shall slow down and shall not enter the same until he has become aware that he may do so without putting anybody in danger. There is evidence on record to show that the truck was coming at fast speed and was driven rashly and negligently. It is, therefore, evident that the driver of the truck did not even take care to see whether it was safe to take the vehicle towards intersection. It did not care even to slow down the speed of the same. Regulation 7 is regarding those drivers of motor vehicles who enter intersection and the main road and have been required to give way to the vehicles proceeding on the same. In this case the scooter driver was already on the main road and according to the evidence on record, driving his scooter with a speed of 10-15 km. per hour. Moreover, while he was on the main road and entered the intersection the truck was not visible to him as it was coming from Ramgarh Road side. The truck came and dragged the scooter from back. It was not possible for the scooter driver in any way to avoid the accident. Merely because a small child of two years was sitting behind the back of driver and in front of the person sitting on the pillion, it cannot be said that the driver of the scooter was responsible for any contributory negligence on this account. It was not possible for the scooter driver in any way to avoid the accident. Merely because a small child of two years was sitting behind the back of driver and in front of the person sitting on the pillion, it cannot be said that the driver of the scooter was responsible for any contributory negligence on this account. From the evidence discussed above I do not find any reason to hold that the deceased was in any way responsible for contributory negligence. I, therefore, hold that no amount should be deducted on this count from the compensation awarded to the Appellants. It is made clear that the Appellants shall be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition on the enhanced amount awarded to them. If any amount has been deposited by the insurance company, it shall not be liable to pay any interest on the deposited amount from the date of deposit or payment. I do not find any reason to interfere in the discretion of the lower court regarding awarding the amount on account of loss of love and affection to the various Appellants. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******