JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.- This appeal is directed against the award passed by Shri R.L Sharma, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Solan and Sirmaur Districts at Solan By means of impugned award in case No 8-S/2 of 1985, dated 30-6-1986, claim petition under section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for grant of compensation has been rejected. In order to properly appreciate the respective contentions raised on behalf of the parties before us, it is necessary to refer to a few facts material for determination of the present appeal. Appellant No.1 Smt, Madhu Sehgal is the widow and appellants No 2 and 3 Master Sunny and Master Nany are the minor sons and appellant No 4 Smt Avinash Devi is the mother, respectively of late Shri Narinder Pal Seghal, who according to the appellants had died in a motor vehicle accident on 1-1-1985 at a place near Deli within jurisdiction of police station Parwanoo at about 6.00 pan Acceding to the appellants, deceased was going on a motor cycle bearing registration No PBP-1819 while he was on his way to Shimla, whereas bus bearing registration No. HIU 165 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 2, resulting in the accident which led to the death of Shri Narinder Pal Seghal Further case of the appellants was that Narinder Pal Seghal died on way to hospital Age of the deceased was pleaded to be 3o years and his income was stated to be Rs 1200 per mensem from the shop that was being run by him. In reply, stand of the respondent No.1 was that the motor cycle was being driven by the deceased under the influence of liquor in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident in question and a report vide F.I.R. No. 3/85 dated 1-1-l983 was lodged against him at police station Parwanoo under sections 279/337 I.P.C. Further case pleaded by the driver was that the bus was being driven in a manner whereby it was under his complete control. Identical stand was taken up by respondent No. 2 driver in his separately filed written statement. It was further pleaded by the driver that it was not the bus that had struck the motor cycle but it was other way round. Identical stand was taken up by respondent No. 2 driver in his separately filed written statement. It was further pleaded by the driver that it was not the bus that had struck the motor cycle but it was other way round. Petition was also had for non joinder and mis-joinder of parties, On the aforesaid pleadings, parties went to trial on the following issues : - 1. Whether the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of bus No, HIU-165 by its driver Dharam Singh respondent No 2 ? OPP 2. Whether the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of deceased Narinder Paul Sehgal of Motor-Cycle No PBP-1819 OPR 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so how much and from whom ? OPP 4. Relief. 2. In respect of their case, Mrs. Madhu Seghal, appellant No. 1 appeared as her own witness and gave the age of the deceased to be 30 years as well as his income at Rs. 40 50 per day She also stated that her husband was in good health. Deceased was stated to be giving Rs. 400 to Rs 500 per month to his mother after one month or so. Because of the death of her husband, it had become difficult for appellant No.1 to give good education to her children. All the appellants were stated to be dependent upon the deceased. In cross-examination, conducted on behalf of the respondents, she denied the suggestion that his daily income was Rs. 5 to 10 per day or it was not Rs. 40 to 50 per day, PW-2 Kamaljeet Singh and another person who was driving on a separate motor cycle alongwith one Amritpaul, has categorically stated that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver of bus No. HIU-165 According to the PW, the bus was on the descent, whereas the deceased as well as the other witness alongwith a pillion rider were on the ascent. Bus came from the wrong side at a high speed and hit the Motor cycle of Narinder Paul Seghal, resulting in his falling down on the road and he sustained injuries No cross examination was directed on this aspect of the case by the appellant No. 1, whereas he denied the suggestion regarding the bus coming on its extreme left or that the deceased having taken his motor cycle on the wrong side, resulting in the accident in question. 3. Against the aforesaid evidence of the appellants Dharam Singh, respondent No. 2 appeared as a driver of the bus in question, who supported his case as pleaded by him in the written statement and attributed the accident due to zigzag driving on the part of the deceased. RW-2 Ram Krishan, was a passenger who was stated to be travelling in the bus in question. According to him, the vehicle which struck into the bus was a scooter. Though in one breath he has said that it was motor cycle, but in the next breath when specifically asked by the learned Counsel, he described it to be scooter According to him, the bus had been brought to a halt when the accident took place and after the accident, the bus was stopped With the help of other persons injured person was put in a car and sent to hospital. At such time, the injured was unconscious and was smelling foul of alcohol and according to him, the accident had occurred due to negligence of the driver of the scooter, PW-3 Slier Singh was a passenger in the bus travelling at that time who also stated that the accident had occurred due to the negligent driving on the part of the deceased. RW-4 is A.S.I. Jaishi Ram, police station Parwanoo, who has been examined to prove the record of F.I.R. No. 3/85 of police station, Parwanoo which was registered at the instance of the bus driver. He has placed on record copy of FIR exhibit RW 4-A and site plan prepared on the file of F.I.R. No 3/85 during the course of investigation According to this witness, it had come in evidence during the course of investigation of the case that the deceased was driving his motor cycle in a zigzag manner as a drunken person. He has placed on record copy of FIR exhibit RW 4-A and site plan prepared on the file of F.I.R. No 3/85 during the course of investigation According to this witness, it had come in evidence during the course of investigation of the case that the deceased was driving his motor cycle in a zigzag manner as a drunken person. He has further stated that as per the report of Chemical Examiner in the viscera of the deceased, alcohal was found to the extent of 34.5 ML. In his cross examination, he has categorically stated that he did have a report of Chemical Examiner on that day. 4. This is the entire evidence produced on behalf of the parties during the course of trial, on the basis whereof, the Tribunal below was satisfied that the accident was not the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 2 and, thus, findings on issues 1 and 2 were returned against the appellants, holding that the accident had taken place because of rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased Narinder Paul, who was driving motor cycle PBP-1819. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that there is no legal evidence on record to show much less hold that the deceased was under the influence of liquor or was driving the motor cycle in question at the time of accident in a drunken state. Similarly, it was urged that the evidence of PW-2 has remained unrebutted on the question that the bus in question was being driven in a rash and negligent manner that too on the wrong side of the road while it was on descent near Doli at the place of accident In this behalf, reference was made by the learned Counsel to site plan RW 4/B prepared by ASI Jaishi Ram It was further urged by Shri Gupta that the income of the deceased also remained unchallenged between Rs. 1200 to 1500 P.M. Regarding the deceased being under the influence of liquor, as per report of the Chemical Examiner, it was urged that in case it was so, then the report of the Chemical Examiner in the ordinary course of things would have been not produced by the responded s through RW-4 from whom F.I.R and site plans exhibits PW 4-A and RW 4-B had been got approved. In the face of this position, it was urged that no oral evidence in this behalf should have been allowed to be brought on record much less relied upon by the trial Court. While further stressing this submission, Shri Gupta urged that adverse influence needs also be drawn against the respondents for non-production of such report, because if what has been stated by RW-4 is to be correct, then the said document would have been produced. All these submissions have been controverted by Shri Gupta learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, who urged that the findings recorded by the Tribunal below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and call for no interference. It was also urged by Shri Gupta that in no case the appellants can be held to be entitled for payment of any compensation On the basis of the statements of RWs-1 to 3 coupled with the investigation report of RW-4, the investigating officer who had investigated the case after registration of F.I.R. vide exhibit RW 4-A, Mr. Gupta wanted to take some advantage from the statement of RW-4 particularly regarding the fact that the deceased was in a drunken state and was driving the motor cycle in a zigzag manner, as had been stated by the said P,. Alcohol having been found in the viscera of the deceased was also sought to be another circumstance for dismissal of the present appeal. However, there being no investigating report as well as copy of the report of the Chemical Examiner, Shri Gupta was not in a position to advance his submissions further for the purpose of enabling him to take benefit from such reports, 6. After having considered the respective submissions we are of the view that accident did take place due to negligence not only of respondent No. 2 who was driving the bus in question, but she deceased had also contributed to some extent in the same In this behalf a reference can usefully be made to the site plan RW 4-B Deceased was stated to be driving the motor cycle in the middle of the road whereas the bus had also dragged it on one side after the accident. The plea of the driver that he had brought the bus to a standstill does not appear to be correct f Besides this, the bus being a heavy vehicle was required to take some extra care to avoid the accident in question on the Highway this does not mean to say that the driver of the smallest vehicle as in the present case does not have to observe the rule of the road. In these circumstances after considering the whole case, we are of the view that the accident was the result of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, to the extent of 30% and it is held accordingly. 7. Now remains the question to what compensation the appellants are entitled to Though evidence on behalf of the appellants has remained un-rebutted, but still there is no proof or other evidence brought on record by them except the bald statement of appellant No.1, who appeared as PW-l before the Tribunal below. In the absence of there being any cogent proof, some guess work has to be applied in this behalf. We are of the considered opinion that taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the income of the deceased can be taken at a nominal sum of Rs. 1000 p.m. Applying the well known and now well recognised unit system to the facts of the case, monthly dependence of (he appellants on the deceased comes to Rs. 750 p m or say Rs. 9000 per annum Keeping in view the age of the deceased, we consider that suitable multiplier in the present case would be 18, thus giving compensation to Rs. 1,62,000, (750 x 12 x 18). Since the accident has been held to be the result of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased which has been assessed @ 30%, the compensation thus works out to Rs. 1,13,400 and by a doing conventional damages of Rs, 3600, the total compensation payable by the respondents to the appellants comes to Rs 1,17,000. On this sum of Rs 1,17,000 appellants are also held entitled to interest at the rate of 9% w.e.f. 15-5-1985 i.e. the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its deposit in this Court. The total compensation of Rs. 1,17,000 would be apportioned between the appellants as under : 1. Mrs. Madhu Seghal Rs. On this sum of Rs 1,17,000 appellants are also held entitled to interest at the rate of 9% w.e.f. 15-5-1985 i.e. the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its deposit in this Court. The total compensation of Rs. 1,17,000 would be apportioned between the appellants as under : 1. Mrs. Madhu Seghal Rs. 39,000 2. Master Sunny Rs. 29,000 3. Master Many Rs. 29,000 4, Ms. Avinasd Devi Rs. 20,000 In addition to the aforesaid amount, each one of the appellants would be entitled to proportionate interest on this amount also. Liability of respondents is joint and several and respondent No.1 is directed to deposit this amount within a period of 8 weeks from today. Costs on the parties. Appeal allowed.