ORDER S.K. Dubey, J. 1. In Misc. Appeal No. 173/89 claimants are the parents, brothers and sister of deceased Laxminarayan, while in Misc. Appeal No. 172/89 the claimants are the parents and brothers and sister of the deceased Abdul Reshid. The claimants in both the cases have filed appeals under section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (for short the 'Act') for enhancement of the compensation awarded by a common award passed on 28th February, 1989 in Claim Case No. 58/87 and No. 59/87 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal. 2. Facts giving rise to the appeal are these : On the fateful day of 12th June, 1987 at about 4.30 p.m. the two deceased Laxminarayan and Abdul Rashid with one Gaya Prasad Uohsare Sub-Engineer of the P.W.D. of the Government of M.P. were going on a Rajdoot Motor Cycle. The Bus No. MBD - 5672 owned by respondent No. 3, driven by respondent No. 1 and insured by respondent No. 3 was coming from the opposite direction which hit the motor cycle from its right side as a result of which the motor cycle was entangled in the right front wheel of the bus and was dragged for a distance. The motor cyclist - Laxminarayan and other two pillian riders fell down on the left side of the road. Out of the three, Laxminarayan, Abdul Rashid died instantaneously. Hence, the legal representatives of the deceased - Laxminarayan aged 24 years, claimed compensation of Rs. 5,30,000/- (Five lacs thirty thousand), while legal representative of deceased Abdul Rashid aged 25 years claimed Rs. 5,32,000/- (Five lacs thirty two thousands) on the averments that both the deceased were contractors and were earning about Rs. 15,000/- per year. The claim of compensation for the death of Abdul Rashid included the amount of Rs. 2,000 /- towards the damage to the motor-cycle. The respondents denied their liability and contended that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the motor-cycle on which three persons were riding in breach of section 85 of the Act. The motor cycle was not in control of the motor cyclist, seeing the motor cycle respondent No. 1 the bus driver drove the bus towards its complete left to avoid the accident but the motor cyclist struck with the right side of the bus. The motor cycle was not in control of the motor cyclist, seeing the motor cycle respondent No. 1 the bus driver drove the bus towards its complete left to avoid the accident but the motor cyclist struck with the right side of the bus. The accident was inevitable because of the sole negligence of the motor cyclist. The respondent No. 3 contended that in terms of the policy, the liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs. 50,000/-. 3. The Tribunal after appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties recorded a finding that three persons were riding on the motor cycle in breach of section 85 of the Act, against safety norms and rules of traffic. There was no traffic on the road. Deceased was driving the motor cycle in the middle of the road. It had been raining and the road was wet and slippery. Therefore, as three persons were riding on it, it is natural that the deceased motor cyclist must have lost control. He ought to have stopped the vehicle to allow the bus to pass. But, instead of that the motor cyclist struck with the right front portion of the bus. However, this will not absolve the bus driver, as respondent No. 1 Miya Khan has admitted in his statement that at the time of the accident it was raining, he saw the motor cycle, three persons riding on it, coming from opposite direction in the middle of the road, In these circumstances, he ought to have taken care to avoid the accident. Therefore, the deceased motor cyclist and the bus driver - respondent No. 1 were held jointly responsible for the accident. The Tribunal assessed the monthly earning of the two decessed as Rs. 600/- each, and after deducting Rs. 200/- per month as personal living expenses of the two deceased, determined the dependency of Rs. 4,800/- per year. Applying a multiplier of. 10, the compensation was assessed at Rs. 48,000/- to which Rs. 2000/- were added under the head of mental pain and suffering. But as the liability was apportioned to fifty per cent, the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in each case with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment. 4. 48,000/- to which Rs. 2000/- were added under the head of mental pain and suffering. But as the liability was apportioned to fifty per cent, the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in each case with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment. 4. Shri R.S. Jha learned counsel for the appellants contended that the finding of the Tribunal on contributory negligence is against the totality of the evidence and is based on conjectures and surmises. The respondent No. 1 has admitted that the three persons riding on the motor cycle were coming from opposite direction in the middle of the road. Therefore, he had ample opportunity to stop the bus so as to avoid the accident, but, the bus was not stopped. The accident occurred on the left side of the road. The motor cycle struck against the right side of the bus and got entangled in the right wheel and was dragged for a distance of about 20 feet. The three riders of the motor cycle fell on the left side of the road. The impact shows that the bus was coming with a high speed and was not in control of the driver, as a result of which the accident occurred, for which the bus driver was alone responsible. On quantum of compensation it was submitted that it is established beyond doubt that the two deceased were building contractors, but, as both were not registered as Cass - II contractors, the Tribunal on surmises assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 600/- while from the evidence led the income was. 1000-1200/- per month. Therefore, compensation as claimed ought to have been awarded. 5. Shri B.K. Rawat, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 2 supported the award and submitted that the finding in respect of the contributory negligence recorded by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on appreciation of oral evidence and this Court in appeal will not interfere in the same. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Suppreme Court in case of Madhusudan Das v. Smt. Narayani Bai and ors. A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 114 Compensation awarded is just and proper. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on appreciation of oral evidence and this Court in appeal will not interfere in the same. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Suppreme Court in case of Madhusudan Das v. Smt. Narayani Bai and ors. A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 114 Compensation awarded is just and proper. As there was no legal evidence about the earnings of the deceased, the Tribunal rightly determined the monthly earning of Rs. 600/- per month. Alternatively, it was submitted that if this Court modifies the award by enhancing the compensation the liability will be of Insurance Company, as the coverage of third party risk was unlimited for which additional premium was paid which is evident from the schedule of the policy. 6. Shri T.C. Naik and Shri Divesh Jain learned counsel for respondent No. 3 Insurance Company supported the award of the Tribunal and submitted that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to Rs. 50,000/- 7. The first question for our consideration is whether in the circumstances of the accident, both the drivers of the vehicles equally contributed to the accident; or the accident was caused due to sole recklessness and negligence of the bus driver. In para 14 of the award the Tribunal has recorded a finding that at the place of accident, the road is plane and straight without any curves, or ups and downs. The road was WET and slippery. Weather was rainy. Miya Khan - N.A.W. 1 stated that he was driving the bus with a speed of 20 kms., he saw the three persons coming on the motor cycle from the opposite direction in the middle of the road at a distance, therefore, he slowed down the speed and turned the vehicle to his left side, but, when the motor-cycle came near the bus it struck with the bus contrary to statement of N.A.W. 1, the circumstances in which the accident occurred speak a different story. Certified copy of the spot map prepared by the police after the accident which is on record demonstrates that bus driver applied the brakes to stop the vehicle from a distance of 60 feet. Certified copy of the spot map prepared by the police after the accident which is on record demonstrates that bus driver applied the brakes to stop the vehicle from a distance of 60 feet. Bus covered more than 3/4th width of the road shown at Point No. 2, right front wheel of the bus is shown at Point No. 5 and motor cycle is shown at No. 3 that is just in front of Point No. 5. At No. 4 near the right rear wheel of the bus dead body of Laxminarayan was lying. Besides the spot map, A.W. 2 - Arun Kumar an independent eyewitness and A.W. 3 - Gaya Prasad the pillion rider have stated that the bus was coming in a high speed while the motor cycle which was being driven by Laxminarayan was going with a low speed on the left side of the road. The bus dashed the motor cycle from the right front portion as a result of that motor cycle and all the three riders fell down, moter cycle was entangled in right front wheel and was dragged for a distance. Even if the testimony of the two eyewitnesses may have some exaggeration, but the well known principle is that a man may say lie while the circumstances do not. From the evidence adduced by the parties it is evident that the road was plane and wet because of shower. The accident occurred on the left side of the road, that is, on the wrong side of bus. Respondent No. 1 saw the motor cycle coming from opposite direction from a distance. He applied brakes, but the bus could not be stopped even for a distance of 60 feet, which dashed from the right portion the motor cycle coming from opposite direction on its left side. The impact was so forceful that the body of Abdul Rashid - the pillion rider - fell at a distance near the rear wheel of the bus. The motor cycle got entangled in the right wheel and was dragged. Therefore, it is clear that the bus was coming with a high speed, which could not be stopped to a distance about 60 feet, it was not in control of the driver of the bus and dashed with the motor cycle. 8. The motor cycle got entangled in the right wheel and was dragged. Therefore, it is clear that the bus was coming with a high speed, which could not be stopped to a distance about 60 feet, it was not in control of the driver of the bus and dashed with the motor cycle. 8. True while using the highway, when two persons so move in relation to one another as to involve risk of collision, each owes to the other a duty to move with due care. It is also the rule of the road that drivers of vehicles or riders should keep well to the left side of the high way unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise, or they are about to over take or turn right, or have to pass stationary vehicles or pedestrians on the road. If two moter vehicles collide in the centre of the road, the inference, in the absence of evidence enabling the Court to draw any other conclusion, is that both drivers equally to blame, and it is not a proper decision to hold, in the absence of evidence enabling the blame to be fixed, upon one driver or the other, no sufficient case has been established against either. (Halsbury's Laws of England Fourth Edition para 46 page 39). 9. In order to establish contributory negligence the defendant has to prove that the negligence of the one driver was a cause of the harm which he has suffered in consequence of the other driver. The question would not be who had the last opportunity of avoiding the mischief but whose act caused the harm. The question must be dealt with broadly and upon commonsense principles. Where a clear line can be drawn, the subsequent negligence is the only one to be considered; however, there are cases in which the two acts come so closely together, and the second act of negligence is so much mixed up with the state of things brought about by the first act, that the person secondly negligent might invoke the prior negligence as being part of the cause of the damage so as to make it a case of apportionment. The test is whether the plaintiff/claimant in the ordinary plain commonsense of the business contributed to the damage. See Halsbury's Laws of England Fourth Edition para 69 page 59. 10. The test is whether the plaintiff/claimant in the ordinary plain commonsense of the business contributed to the damage. See Halsbury's Laws of England Fourth Edition para 69 page 59. 10. In the present case, it is clear from the statement of N.A.W. 1 that he saw the motor cycle coming, he applied brakes and took the Vehicle to left but even then motor cyclist struck and accident took place. When motor cycle was first seen, the distance was about 60 feet which is evident from the tyre marks on the road, but, the bus could not be stopped. That gives a clear inference that the bus was in a high speed and could not be controlled and resulted in impact on the left side of the motor cycle. The collision was not in the middle of the road. Therefore, the bus driver was solely responsible for the accident. Besides, the principle of last opportunity would also be applicable as by the exercise of ordinary care and diligence, by stopping the bus, the accident could have been avoided, even if for arguments sake the motor cyclist was taken to be negligent. See - Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. V.P.J. John end others 1991 A.C.J. and Union of India vs. Hanuman Prasad Agarwalla. 1989 A.C.J. 897. 11. The other reason for holding the motor cyclist for contributing the negligence is the breach of section 85 of the Act which lays down that no driver of a two wheeled motor cycle shall carry more than one person in addition to himself on the cycle and no such person shall be carried otherwise than sitting on a proper seat securely fixed to the cycle behind the driver's seat. True, the driver of two-wheelers of motor vehicles should drive their vehicle by complying the provisions of the Act and Rules which have been enacted for their safety. If they commit breach, besides liable to be prosecuted, they expose themselves to risk and would contribute to negligence. But in the facts and circumstances of this case in which the accident has occurred, the breach does not give rise to an inference that breach has culminated into contributory negligence, as in our opinion, it was the bus driver who was solely responsible for the accident. But in the facts and circumstances of this case in which the accident has occurred, the breach does not give rise to an inference that breach has culminated into contributory negligence, as in our opinion, it was the bus driver who was solely responsible for the accident. Therefore for the breach of section 85 of the Act, the compensation cannot be denied for the tortuous act of the bus driver. See a Division Bench decision of Gujarat High Court in case of S.M. Vyas v. Smt. Sudhaben Sukethu Sutaria AIR 1980 Gujrat 46. 12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it is not in dispute that the deceased were contractors and were earning members. To that effect there is evidence of Marotira - A.W.1, the father of the deceased Laxminarayan, and of Abdul Aziz - A.W. 4, the father of deceased Abdul Rashid, and also of A.W. 3 - Gaya Frasad Uchsare a P.W.D. Sub-Engineer, Which clearly establish that the two deceased were earning minimum Rs. 1000/- per month. Therefore, it would be unjust to say that for want of registration of Class - III Contractor the deceased were earning merely Rs. 600/- per month. Out of the earning of Rs. 1000/-, after deducting the personal living expenses of Rs. 300/- per month of each of the deceased the dependency or contribution to the family fund would come to Rs. 700/- per month; yearly Rs. 8400/-. Considering the age of the parents of the deceased and their brothers, sisters, and age of the deceased we are of the opinion that application of 14 as multiplier would be proper, the compensation would come to Rs. 1,17,600/- to which the claimants would be entitle in each case with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of the application till payment. 13. Now it take us to the plea raised by the Insurance Company that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to statutory liability of Rs. 50,000/- in view of section 95 of the Act. Insurance policy is Ex. D/2 of which Schedule of Premium paid is shown as below: A: - OWN DAMAGE BASIC Rs. 440/00- B. liability to Public risk Add L.L. to Rs. 24-00 Add 3% Extra Fitting 1.10 Add % I.E.V. Rs. 2200.00 Passenger Add L.L. to - Paid Driver/Cleaner Rs.16-00 Less % Disc on Excess (Mas. R.&.) 48 passengers Rs. Insurance policy is Ex. D/2 of which Schedule of Premium paid is shown as below: A: - OWN DAMAGE BASIC Rs. 440/00- B. liability to Public risk Add L.L. to Rs. 24-00 Add 3% Extra Fitting 1.10 Add % I.E.V. Rs. 2200.00 Passenger Add L.L. to - Paid Driver/Cleaner Rs.16-00 Less % Disc on Excess (Mas. R.&.) 48 passengers Rs. 576-00 Add: Riot & Strike T.P.L. INCREASED COMPRHENSIVE - I premium (A + B) Rs. 50-00 Rs. 3322-00 Less. 10% EQ -Less % NCB Rs. 200-00 Less 5% S.D. Rs. 166-00 Rs. 2440-00 4ETT PREMIUM DUE (ROUDED OFF) Rs.3156/- A perusal of the schedule of premium indicates that besides the liability to public risk liability and of 48 passengers, driver and cleaner, a premium of Rs. 50 for the increased third party liability was accepted to cover the unlimited liability. In the circumstances, in the comprehensive policy the additional premium was paid for covering the increased risk of third party, the liability in the opinion of this Court, would be unlimited and not limited under section 95 (2) (b) (i) of the Act because of the specific agreement contract to contrary in the policy itself. (National Insurance Co. v. Jugal Kishore and others A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 719 and New India Insurance Co. v. Shanta Bai (1995) 2 S.C.C. 539 and Vimla Gangotia (smt.) and another v. National Insurance Company and others. 1995 JLJ 103 . Therefore, we held that the respondent No. 3 - the Insurance Company shall satisfy the award so modified by us. The amount of compensation so enhanced in both the cases shall be deposited within a period of two months with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application, less the amount already deposited by it, with proportionate interest On deposit, the amount shall be disbursed to the claimants by the Tribunal keeping into consideration the guidelines laid by the Supreme Court in case of General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation V. Sugamma Thomas A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1631. 14. In the result, the appeals are allowed with costs. The award of the Tribunal in the two claim cases shall stand substituted as indicated hereinabove. Counsel fee Rs. 500/- in each, if pre-certified.