JUDGMENT K.M. Agrawal, J. 1. This order shall also dispose of M.F. A. No. 411 of 1986 (Bhuriya v. Taj Mohammad). Both these appeals arise out of joint trial of two claim petitions arising out of one and the same accident. The appellants in both these appeals were claimants before the Claims Tribunal. Being aggrieved by two separate awards made by the Claims Tribunal, they have preferred these two separate appeals for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to them by the Tribunal. 2. The appellant, Bhuriya, in M.F.A. No. 411 of 1986 and the deceased Pannalal were graziers. On 29.8.1983 at about 4.30 or 5 a.m. both these persons had gone to the forest along with their cattle. The cattle-heads were grazing by the side of the road, whereas the appellant, Bhuriya and the deceased Pannalal were sleeping on the road. In the meanwhile, bus No. MPN 8231, driven by the respondent No. 1, owned by the respondent No. 2 and insured with the respondent No. 3, came from the side of Shekhpura and while proceeding towards Khandwa ran over the appellant, Bhuriya and the deceased Pannalal. As a result of the accident, Pannalal died whereas the appellant, Bhuriya, received severe injuries on his thigh. Accordingly, after the accident, Bhuriya and the legal representatives of deceased Pannalal filed claim petitions before the Claims Tribunal which was pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 26,250/- to the appellant, Bhuriya and a sum of Rs. 21,750 to the legal representatives of the deceased Pannalal. Being aggrieved, the claimants have preferred these appeals for enhancement of the amounts of compensation. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the appeal of Bhuriya has no substance and accordingly it deserves to be dismissed. On the basis of evidence brought on record, the Claims Tribunal has come to a definite finding that on the date of the accident Bhuriya was aged about 45 years and that his monthly income was Rs. 150/-. After the accident, he had stalled earning a sum of Rs. 100/- per month by becoming a watchman of a farm of guavas. Consequently, the monetary present and future loss arising out of the accident was assessed at Rs. 15,000/- by the Claims Tribunal which cannot be said to be unreasonable. A further amount of Rs. 150/-. After the accident, he had stalled earning a sum of Rs. 100/- per month by becoming a watchman of a farm of guavas. Consequently, the monetary present and future loss arising out of the accident was assessed at Rs. 15,000/- by the Claims Tribunal which cannot be said to be unreasonable. A further amount of Rs. 20,000 was awarded for permanent disability suffered by appellant, Bhuriya, as a result of the said accident as discussed in para 19 of the impugned award. It cannot be gainsaid that the appellant, Bhuriya, was also negligent by sleeping or sitting on the road, overlooking the fact that heavy vehicles like trucks and buses used to pass on the road. The accident could have been avoided, had he avoided to sleep on the road. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal did not commit any error in holding that the appellant was also guilty of contributory negligence and accordingly reducing the amount of compensation of Rs. 35,000/-by 25 per cent. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the appeal of Bhuriya and accordingly, it deserves to be dismissed. 4. So far as the appeal of the legal representatives of deceased Pannalal is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has come to a finding in para 20 of the impugned award that the deceased was 18 years of age on the date of his death and that his monthly income was Rs. 160/- as disclosed from the evidence on record although in claim petition it was claimed at the rate of Rs. 150/-per month. After so holding, the Claims Tribunal estimated personal expenditure of the deceased at Rs. 60/- per month and his contribution to the family was assessed at Rs. 100/- per month. Looking to the status of the deceased and his family, I am of the view that personal expenditure of the deceased at Rs. 60/- per month assessed by the Claims Tribunal is excessive. It ought to have been determined at Rs. 30/- per month. I am further of the view that the Claims Tribunal did not commit any error in applying the multiple of 20 years while assessing the compensation payable to the legal representatives of the deceased. It has been worked out to Rs. 24,000/- at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. According to me, it ought to have been worked out at Rs. It has been worked out to Rs. 24,000/- at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. According to me, it ought to have been worked out at Rs. 31,200/- at the rate of Rs. 130/- per month. Besides this amount of Rs. 31,200, the legal representatives of the deceased Pannalal are also entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000/- awarded to them towards mental pain and agony. In this way, the total amount of compensation ought to have been determined by the Claims Tribunal at Rs. 36,200, whereas it was determined at Rs. 29,000/-. 5. The public road was not meant for being used for the purpose of sleeping. The deceased Pannalal ought to have known that heavy vehicles like trucks and buses used to go and come on the road on which he was sleeping. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal was right in holding that the deceased was also guilty of contributory negligence and on that basis in holding that the total amount of compensation deserves to be reduced by 25 per cent. If so reduced, the total amount of compensation payable to the L.Rs. of deceased Pannalal works out to Rs. 25,700 (Sic. Rs. 27,1507-). The award made by the Tribunal only for a sum of Rs. 21,750/-, therefore, deserves to be modified by enhancing the amount of Rs. 21,750/- to Rs. 25,700/-. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by Bhuriya (M.F.A. No. 411 of 1986) deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the legal representatives of deceased Pannalal (M.F.A. No. 408 of 1986) deserves to be partly allowed and is hereby allowed by enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs. 21,750/- to Rs. 25,700/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 28.2.1984 till the date of recovery as directed by the Claims Tribunal. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs in any of these two appeals so far as this court is concerned.