Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the above-named insurance company under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , against the judgment and award dated 12.1.1994 passed by Mr. Sashi Kumar Choudhary, 1st Additional Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh, in Compensation Case No. 47 of 1991, whereby a compensation of Rs. 3,49,904.00 has been awarded in favour of the claimant-respondent Nos. 3 to 8. 2. The claimants case has arisen out of an accident occurred in the night of 21.10.1990 within the jurisdiction of Hazaribagh District. It has been asserted by the claimants, who happened to be the wife, children and father of the deceased, Ramanand Singh, that the deceased Rama-nand Singh boarded on bus No. BHB 6242 at Jahanabad for going to Ranchi in order to attend his duty in Bihar State Road Transport Corpn. Bus Depot at Ranchi. The said bus is owned by the B.S.R.T.C. who was made opposite party No. 1 in the claim case. It has further been stated in the claim petition that the said bus was driven rashly and negligently and without observing precautionary safety measures and on the way it met with a head-on collision with another bus bearing registration No. BR-20 (H) 8821 coming from opposite direction in most rash and negligent manner with excessive speed and due to the said accident, Ramanand Singh received severe multiple injuries on his head and on other parts of his body. The driver of the B.S.R.T.C. bus also died in the said accident. Other passengers in the bus also received injuries. It has been stated in the claim petition that due to rashness and negligence of the drivers of both the buses the said accident took place. The injured Ramanand Singh was removed to R.N.C.H. hospital for medical treatment and there he was admitted as indoor patient wherein he was operated by the Professor and Head of the Department of Neuro Surgery. But, during the continuance of treatment, Ramanand Singh died on 26.10.1990 due to the injuries sustained by him. One of the passengers of the bus, namely, Ram Pravesh Sharma informed the police at Chouparan Police Station. It has been stated in the claim petition that the deceased Ramanand Singh was hale and hearty aged about 45 years at the time of accident and he was serving in the B.S.R.T.C. on permanent basis having monthly income of Rs. One of the passengers of the bus, namely, Ram Pravesh Sharma informed the police at Chouparan Police Station. It has been stated in the claim petition that the deceased Ramanand Singh was hale and hearty aged about 45 years at the time of accident and he was serving in the B.S.R.T.C. on permanent basis having monthly income of Rs. 2,728 towards the salary with other payment of Rs. 250.00 per month and Rs. 125.00 as bonus and by that emolument, he used to maintain his family. The accident occurred on G.T. Road at Simarkhori Ghati within Chouparan Police Station in the district of Hazaribagh. Police case was registered under Secs. 279, 338/304-A, Indian Penal Code. 3. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., who is the appellant in this case, is admittedly the insurer of offending bus No. BR-20 (H) 8821, which is owned by O.P. No. 2, driver being O.P. No. 3. The appellant, O.P. No. 4, contested the case by filing a written statement and it was averred that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the B.S.R.T.C. bus No. BHB 6242 which was admittedly in high speed and that via media it was mentioned that the Jairam Bus, i.e., the alleged offending bus which was insured with this insurance company was not rash and negligent and as such not responsible for the accident. B.S.R.T.C, O.P. No. 1, also filed a written statement denying the fact that the bus No. BHB 6242 was running at high speed and in rash and negligent manner, rather according to them, Jairam Bus was responsible for the accident. 4. In this case, F.I.R., charge-sheet, the death certificate have been filed and exhibited. From the death certificate, it could be found that Ramanand Singh was aged about 45 years and he was admitted to hospital on 22.10.1990 and died on 26.10.1990. Certificate was issued by the R.N.C.H. Hospital, Ranchi. Record regarding the service of the deceased was produced and exhibited as Exh. 4 showing that the deceased Ramanand Singh was drawing monthly payment of Rs. 1,600.00 , C.L.A. Rs. 608.00 and other minor amounts which totalled Rs. 2,728.00 as the monthly emolument. Certificate was issued by the R.N.C.H. Hospital, Ranchi. Record regarding the service of the deceased was produced and exhibited as Exh. 4 showing that the deceased Ramanand Singh was drawing monthly payment of Rs. 1,600.00 , C.L.A. Rs. 608.00 and other minor amounts which totalled Rs. 2,728.00 as the monthly emolument. The deceaseds son, one of the claimants, Om Prakash Singh, was examined as AW 1, wife of the deceased, Sushila Devi, was examined as AW 2 and independent witness Krishna Prasad has been examined as AW 3, who claimed himself to be a co-passenger in the bus and an eyewitness to the occurrence. For and on behalf of opposite parties, no evidence has been adduced. 5. After considering the evidence on record and mainly relying on the evidence of eyewitness, AW 3, the learned Claims Tribunal came to the finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Jairam Bus and not that of the B.S.R.T.C. bus and as such after calculating the compensation awarded the same against the appellant insurance company as at the relevant time admittedly the appellant was the insurer of the offending bus. 6. Mr. M.Y. Eqbal, appearing for and on behalf of the appellant, assails the impugned award and judgment on the grounds: (i) That when the claimants asserted that the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of both the buses, in such a case, there is no scope for the Tribunal to arrive at a finding on the sole oral evidence of AW 3 to the effect that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of Jairam Bus alone; (ii) That the compensation awarded is not only high and excessive but beyond all principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court. 7. On the other hand, Mr. S.N. Lal, appearing for and on behalf of claimants-respondents, has averted the submissions of Mr. Eqbal by referring to the findings of the impugned judgment itself and submitted that the award is totally all right and there is nothing to interfere with the same. 8. It is the strenuous argument of Mr. M.Y. Eqbal that when the documentary evidence is on record, namely, the F.I.R., Exh. Eqbal by referring to the findings of the impugned judgment itself and submitted that the award is totally all right and there is nothing to interfere with the same. 8. It is the strenuous argument of Mr. M.Y. Eqbal that when the documentary evidence is on record, namely, the F.I.R., Exh. 1, to the effect that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles then there was no scope for the Tribunal to discard that documentary evidence and to rely on the sole oral evidence of AW 3. His further submission is that when the claimants have averred in the claim petition regarding the contributory negligence of both the vehicles, the same, unless being disputed and discarded by the evidence of B.S.R.T.C, cannot be thrown out on the evidence of AW 3 alone. 9. F.I.R. has been lodged allegedly by a passenger of the bus but that maker of the F.I.R. has not been examined in the case. The owner or the driver of the offending bus has not adduced evidence nor they filed written statement in the case. B.S.R.T.C: disputed the negligence on the part of its bus and as such when oral evidence came regarding the negligence of the Jairam Bus alone then it was not incumbent on the part of the B.S.R.T.C. to adduce evidence to discard the same. But it was the bounden duty on the part of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 to adduce evidence in the case and they had not filed any written statement, the insurance company could have compelled the owner or the driver of the offending vehicle to adduce evidence to discard the oral evidence on the part of the claimants. The claimants have averred in the claim petition regarding the composite/contributory negligence of both the vehicles on the basis of the averments made in the F.I.R. because none of the witnesses was the eyewitness to the occurrence. F.I.R. itself is not a substantive piece of evidence unless the maker of the same is produced to corroborate or contradict the same. The F.I.R., Exh. 1, cannot be considered as a substantive piece of evidence to discard the evidence of AW 3, who was subjected to rigorous cross-examination from the side of the opposite party. F.I.R. itself is not a substantive piece of evidence unless the maker of the same is produced to corroborate or contradict the same. The F.I.R., Exh. 1, cannot be considered as a substantive piece of evidence to discard the evidence of AW 3, who was subjected to rigorous cross-examination from the side of the opposite party. Only because F.I.R. story is of a contributory negligence the same cannot be taken to be a gospel truth belying the oral evidence adduced before the Tribunal itself. 10. I find that the learned court below was right in relying on the oral evidence of AW 3 regarding rash and negligent driving of Jairam Bus and there is no illegality in appreciating his evidence and as such on this score, I do not find any force in the submission of Mr. Eqbal. He has referred to a decision of Rajasthan High Court in Jagannathi V/s. Mohan Singh 1989 ACJ 76 (Rajasthan). In that case, there was oral evidence from both the sides and as such there was scope for the Tribunal and the High Court to assess the evidence for taking the factum of contributory negligence. In the present case, the circumstances are quite different. 11. On the second point, Mr. Eqbal has got force in his submission towards excessive award of compensation. Regarding the monthly emolument of the deceased, there is no scope to interfere as the same is based on the salary certificate. So, the learned Claims Tribunal was right in holding that the monthly emolument of the deceased at the time of death was Rs. 3,200.00 . 1/3rd of the amount has been deducted for finding out the monthly dependency of the claimants which comes out to be Rs. 1,066.00 per month. So the yearly dependency comes up to be Rs. 25,560.00 towards the round figure. As the deceased died at the age of 45 years and he was to retire at the age of superannuation of 58 years, the multiplier of 13 was applied by the learned Tribunal, but I find that such multiplier is not proper on the basis of the guidelines given by the Apex Court. 25,560.00 towards the round figure. As the deceased died at the age of 45 years and he was to retire at the age of superannuation of 58 years, the multiplier of 13 was applied by the learned Tribunal, but I find that such multiplier is not proper on the basis of the guidelines given by the Apex Court. In the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation V/s. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), where the deceased died at the age of 38 years, multiplier of 12 was found to be the proper catalyst. Here, in this case, the deceased was aged 45 years and in my considered opinion, multiplier of 8 would be the proper one. Thus, the annual dependency multiplied by 8, the compensation comes up to be Rs. 2,04,480.00 . The claimants would further be entitled to the cost/expenses of medical treatment at Rs. 2,000.00 and also the cost of consortium of Rs. 15,000.00 and hence the total comes to be Rs. 2,21,480.00 , making it a round figure, it becomes Rs. 2,21,500.00 . The claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum to be calculated from the date of petition up to the date of payment. But the interim no fault liability of Rs. 25,000.00 which has been paid already, should be deducted from the award of compensation and deposit of the statutory amount under Sec. 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and paid to the claimants vide order dated 30.5.1995 was also to be deducted from the amount of compensation and such deposit of payment should also be considered in calculating the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. 12. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed with a modification in the award of compensation as mentioned above. No costs are awarded to either of the parties in this appeal.