JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J. The appellant Mrs. Suman Talwar is legal representative and daughter of original appellant Smt, Tripta Sood, who has filed this appeal against the award dated 31.12.1985, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kangra Division at Dharamshala, praying for enhancement of the compensation amount. By the impugned award Smt, Tripta Devi Sood was awarded an amount of Rs. 3,03,000/- (Rupees three lacs and three thousand) as compensation for die death of her son Rajiv Kumar, out of which Rs. 1,50,000/- was held to be payable by respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company whereas respondents No. 1 and 2, who are owner and driver of the truck in question were held to be liable to pay the balance award amount. Cost of Rs. 1000/- has also been awarded against the respondents. Respondent No. 1 Rakesh Kumar, has also preferred Cross-objections No, 109 of 1986 challenging the impugned award which will also be decided by this judgment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Tripta Devi Sood filed claim petition demanding compensation to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs for the death of her son Rajiv Kumar in an accident which took place on 21.1.1982 at 9 pm at Shahpur on Pathankot- Shahpur road due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. HPB-1004 by its driver Satish Singh-respondent No.2 and for which owner of the said truck Rakesh Kumar respondent No.l was vicariously liable. It was stated in the claim petition that at the time of accident deceased Rajiv Kumar was working as 2nd Officer in Wallen Ship Management Ltd. at Hong-Kong at monthly salary of Rs. 1114.00 U.S. Dollars-equivalent to Rs. 10,026.00 approximately, which was not subject to income tax. It is further stated that on the day of accident deceased Rajiv Kumar was coming from Pathankot to Dharamshala on his motorcycle No. HPK-1669 accompanied by Virender Kumar Arora (PW-1), who was sitting on the pillion seat. At about 9.15 pm when they reached Shahpur, truck in question, which was being driven rashly, negligent and at a very fast speed by Satish Singh-respondent No, 2, was coming from apposite direction i.e. from Pathankot to Dharamshala and struck against the motorcycle by losing its control while crossing an oil Tanker No, PUG-7347, which was parked on the right side of the road. At that time motorcycle was being driven at its correct side i.e. at extreme left of the road, Both deceased Rajiv Kumar and Virender Kumar Arora (PW-1) had become unconscious as a result of accident and they were removed to Primary Health Centre, Shahpur by Des Raj, the co-driver of the truck. Virender Kumar (PW-1) had received only minor juries, as such, he was discharged after giving him first aid whereas Rajiv Kumar being in serious condition was referred to Civil Hospital, Dharamshala and thereafter to Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh but he succumbed to his injuries on the way on 22.1.1982, Autopsy was conducted by Dr. Ashok Gupta (PW-9), Medical Officer, General Hospital, Scctor-16, Chandigarh. 3. Respondents filed separate written statements but defence taken by them is common denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and alleging that deceased Rajiv Kumar was drunk and was driving motorcycle rashly, negligently and at a fast speed as a result of which he lost his control and struck against the stationary truck in front of building of Shri Kul Parkash. It is further stated in the written statement of Satish Singh, respondent-2, that while he was crossing the oil tanker No. PUG- 7347 parked on the road he noticed a motorcycle coming from the opposite direction at a very fast speed, therefore, he applied the brakes and stopped his truck. There was sufficient road on the right side of the truck for passing the motorcycle but deceased Rajiv Kumar was drunk and driving his motorcycle rashly, negligently and at a very high speed, as such, he struck his motorcycle rashly, negligently and at a very high speed, as such, he struck his motorcycle against the truck by breaking the front right headlight of the truck and fell down on the road along with his , companion Virender Kumar Arora (PW-1). It is also stated that had deceased Rajiv Kumar not taken the liquor while driving his motorcycle the accident would not have occurred. Insurance Company -respondent No. 3 has stated that the amount claimed was very excessive and their liability was limited as per the terms of the Insurance Policy No. 42103/-24/1/01140/81, a true copy whereof was filed with the written statement. 4. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:- "1. Whether the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2? 4. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:- "1. Whether the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2? OPP. 2. Whether Rajiv Kumar deceased was driving his Motorcycle rashly and negligently which resulted in the present accident? OPR. 3: In case issue No. 1 is proved is the affirmative to what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled to and from whom? OPP. 4. Relief." 5. While answering Issues No. 1 and 2, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck in question driven by Satish Singh-respondent No.2 but deceased Rajiv Kumar was also held guilty of contributory negligence. While answering Issue No 3, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has held that. deceased Rajiv Kumar was contributing an amount of Rs. 5000/- per month i.e. Rs. 60,000/- per annum at an average to the family income, as such, by applying the multiplier of 10, the compensation is assessed as Rs. 6,00,000/- but by deducting 50% due to contributory negligence compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- have been awarded to which conventional figure of Rs. 3000/- has been added for the loss of expectation of life. The liability of Insurance Company - respondent No. 3 has been fixed at Rs. 1,50,000/- on the basis of Insurance Policy, Ex: R-l. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Shri D.D. Sood, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has assailed the findings of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that deceased Rajiv Kumar was also guilty of contributory negligence as a result of which amount of compensation has been reduced by 50% Shri Sood has pointed out that by not wearing head gear deceased Rajiv Kumar might have violated some provisions of the Act or rules but he had not contributed to the negligence due to which the accident had occurred. He has further pointed out that the photograph, Ext. P-4 to Ext. P-8 and the statement of Virender Kumar, PW-1, clearly establish that deceased Rajiv Kumar had taken all precautions by taking his motorcycle to the extreme left after seeing the truck coming from the opposite side at a high speed and being driven rashly and negligently, as such, he was not responsible in any manner for the accident. P-4 to Ext. P-8 and the statement of Virender Kumar, PW-1, clearly establish that deceased Rajiv Kumar had taken all precautions by taking his motorcycle to the extreme left after seeing the truck coming from the opposite side at a high speed and being driven rashly and negligently, as such, he was not responsible in any manner for the accident. Shri Sood has further argued that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has mis-read and mis-interpreted the statement of Tripta Devi (PW-5) and the documents Ext. P-3 to P-8 to come to the conclusion that he was contributing only K-,. 5000/- per month i.e. Rs. (6,000/- per annum to the family income. According to Shri Sood, deceases Rajiv Kumar was earning 1600 American Dollars equivalent to Rs. 12800/- per month as stated by his mother Tripta Devi (PW-5) out of which he was not spending more than 1/3rd on himself, therefore, his contribution to the family was not less than Rs. 8000/-. Shri Sood has further argued that the multiplier of 10, applied by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, is also not just and proper locking to the age of the deceased Rajiv Kamar as 26 years r the time of accident. 7. On the other hand, Shri Bhupender Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. l and 2, who have filed Cross-Objections, his assailed the findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2-Satish Singh, who was driving the truck in question at the time of accident. According to him, the accident hid taken place due to rash and negligent driving of deceased Rajiv Kumar who was drunk at the time of accident. Shri Bhupender Gupta has further accused that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has not determined the datum figure correctly as deceased Rajiv Kumar was employed with the Shipping Company for a period of six months in a year as per the service agreement. Ext.P-11 to P-13, as such, the amount of Rs.5000/- per month sent to Tripta Devi, PW-5, could not be considered for all the 12 months in a year. Shri Gupu has also tried to point out that the Insurance Policy was comprehensive, as such, the Insurance Company respondent No.3, is liable to pay the whole of the award amount. 8. Ext.P-11 to P-13, as such, the amount of Rs.5000/- per month sent to Tripta Devi, PW-5, could not be considered for all the 12 months in a year. Shri Gupu has also tried to point out that the Insurance Policy was comprehensive, as such, the Insurance Company respondent No.3, is liable to pay the whole of the award amount. 8. After considering the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has correctly read and -furred the oral and documentary evidence on record to come to the conclusion that accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Satish Singh - respondent No.2, the driver of the truck in question From the photographs, Exts.P-4 to P-8, which fully corroborate the statement of Virendr- Kumar, PW-1, it is clear that at the time of collusion motorcycle was at its extreme left whereas the truck which was coming from the opposite direction had gone to its extreme right and hit the motorcycle. These photographs clearly reveal that there was sufficient space on the left side of the truck where from traffic was continuing even after the accident whereas the motorcycle was in the kucha portion of the road at its extreme left and there was no space where it could go further to save itself Besides. Virender Kumar (PW-1), Satish Singh-respondent No.2, the driver of the truck was the best person to tell that in what manner the accident had taken place but he has not come forward to appear as witness. We find that after the evidence of claim ants was closed on 6.12.1985 respondents were given opportunities to produce their evidence but learned counsel appearing for Rakesh Kumar-respondent No.1 gave statement that he did not want to produce any evidence on behalf of respondent No. l and learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company respondent No. 3 tendered in evidence a copy of Insurance Policy. Ext.R-1, which was admired by learned counsel for Rakesh Kumar and Satish Singh, respondents No.1 and 2 and he closed his evidence. Learned counsel appearing for Satish Kumar-respondent No.2, sought adjournment to produce Satish Kumar-respondent No.2, as his own witness but his prayer was rejected on the ground that being party he was supposed to be present. Ext.R-1, which was admired by learned counsel for Rakesh Kumar and Satish Singh, respondents No.1 and 2 and he closed his evidence. Learned counsel appearing for Satish Kumar-respondent No.2, sought adjournment to produce Satish Kumar-respondent No.2, as his own witness but his prayer was rejected on the ground that being party he was supposed to be present. In these circumstances, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly drawn adverse inference against respondents that had Satish Singh-respondent No.2, appeared as his own ness his statement would have gone against them. 9. So far the findings of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that deceased Rajiv Kumar had also contributed to the negligence as a result of which the accident had taken place is concerned, we do not find them proper and justified it is proved on record that by seeing the truck coming from opposite side at t speed and being driven rashly and negligently deceased Rajiv Kumar took ill precautions by taking his motorcycle to the extreme left beyond which there was no space as such, he cannot be held liable for the accident in any manner. The allegation of respondents that he was drunk at the relevant time has been denied by Virender Kumar (PW-1) and is not corroborated from the postmortem report or any other evidence on record. Admittedly, he was not wearing gear at the relevant time but by no stretch of imagination it had contributed he occurrence of accident. By not wearing bead gear deceased Rajiv Kumar might have violated the provisions of the Act and the Motor Vehicle Rules and exposed himself to injury on his head but it had not contributed to the accident. It cannot be said that had deceased Rajiv Kumar been wearing head gear, he would not have received such injuries which could cause his death. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that deceased Rajiv Kumar was also guilty of contributory negligence. 10. So far determination of amount of compensation is concerned, we I that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has correctly read and inferred the statement of Tripta Devi (PW-5) and the service agreement, Ext.P-11 to P-13, as well as letters, Exts.P-6/A to P- 7/A, written by deceased Rajiv Kumar to Tripta Devi to come to the conclusion that his contribution to the family income Rs.5000/- per month and i.e. Rs.60,000/- per annum. From these documents, it is very clear that though under the contract deceased Rajiv Kumar was employed for 9 months where after he availed three months leave but he have been re-employed on the same terms and conditions had he reported after leave. Therefore, datum figure has been correctly assessed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Looking to the age of deceased Rajiv kumar as 26 years at the time of accident and other relevant factors the proper multiplier is 15, if not more. Further it is to be kept in view that the claimant is a mother who would not have received the sane contributions towards family income after deceased Rajiv Kumar would have got married within a few years he was already 26 years. Her own age is another important factor for the determination of compensation to be awarded to her. Though, there is no evidence of her age on record but she has not survived to see the result of this appeal and has died after about 8 years from the date of accident. Therefore, we opinion of this Court Tripta Devi was entitled to only l/3rd of the total amount of compensation. By applying the multiplier of 15 to the datum figure, of Rs. 5000/- per month or Rs.60,000/- per annum the total compensation will to Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lacs), l/3rd of which comes to Rs.3,00,000/-, as such the amount awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is fair and just compensation and it is upheld. Further we have perused Insurance Policy, Ext.R-1, it is not comprehensive and liability to third party; is limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-, as such, Insurance Company, respondent No.3, is rightly fastened with liability of Rs. 1,50,000/- and the remaining award amount is payable by respondents No. l and 2. 11. However, we find that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not right in not granting interest on the compensation amount from the date of application. The claimant was entitled to interest on the amount of compensation due and payable to her from the date of application i.e. from 15.7.1982. Therefore, we hold that interest at the rate of 10% will be paid to the appellant-claimant on the amount of compensation of Rs.3,03,000/- from the date of application i.e. 15.7.1982 till the date of payment. The Insurance Company, respondent No.3, will pay interest on Rs. Therefore, we hold that interest at the rate of 10% will be paid to the appellant-claimant on the amount of compensation of Rs.3,03,000/- from the date of application i.e. 15.7.1982 till the date of payment. The Insurance Company, respondent No.3, will pay interest on Rs. 1,50,000/- and respondent No. l and 2 will pay interest on the balance award amount. They are directed to deposit balance award amount with interest within a period of two months. 12. The appeal is allowed to that limited extent and the Cross- objections are dismissed. Costs easy -