Judgment R. L. Anand, J. 1. By this judgment, I will dispose of F. A. O. No.486 of 1987 titled Indrawati V/s. Ramesh Kumar and f. A. O. No.262 of 1987 titled Ramesh kumar V/s. Indrawati, as both these appeals have arisen from the award dated 9.1.1987 passed by the court of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Rohtak, who, awarded a sum of Rs.18,000 by way of compensation to Indrawati, widow of Rajinder Singh, besides interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of the filing of the claim petition till realisation. 2. It was also ordered by the Tribunal that Ramesh Kumar shall pay 50 per cent amount of compensation while 50 per cent amount of compensation shall be paid by respondent Nos.3 and 4, i. e. , Rameshwar dass and the State of Haryana. 3. Indrawati through her appeal has made a prayer that the compensation may be enhanced while Ramesh Kumar has filed the appeal that he is not liable to pay compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. It may also be mentioned here that Motion bench dismissed the appeal of Ramesh kumar vis-a-vis Indrawati vide its order dated 12.5.1987. 4. It may also be mentioned here that the claim petition under sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, was filed by Indrawati in the year 1986 and at that time she was pregnant and thereafter, she delivered a male child, namely, Deepak who shall be added as a co-appellant with his mother. 5. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.5.1985 deceased Rajinder Singh, husband of Indrawati, was coming from Rohtak in a three-wheeler Tempo HYK 6881. When the three-wheeler Tempo reached near the canal bridge from Rohtak side and was yet to cross the canal bridge, on the rohtak-Sonepat Road, then a jeep bearing no. HYC 2875 came there. It was being driven by respondent Rameshwar Dass. The vehicle is owned by respondent No.4, the State of Haryana. According to the claimant, the jeep was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the jeep lost control. It struck against the tempo in which the deceased was driving, as a result of which, both the vehicles came into contact. Right side of the jeep struck against the right side of the Tempo. According to the claimant, the jeep was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the jeep lost control. It struck against the tempo in which the deceased was driving, as a result of which, both the vehicles came into contact. Right side of the jeep struck against the right side of the Tempo. The deceased was sitting near the footrest of the Tempo and with the impact of the accident, he was thrown out from the Tempo and received multiple injuries. Rajinder singh died at the spot. According to the claimant, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep bearing No. HYC 2875. In the alternative, it was pleaded by the claimant that in case the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the drivers of both the vehicles are negligent then award may be passed against all the respondents jointly and severally. It is further alleged by the petitioner that deceased was employed as Stock Assistant in the Veterinary Hospital. He was about 33 years old at the time of his death and was getting a salary of Rs.1,800 per month, Indrawati was pregnant at the time of the filing of the petition from the loins of the deceased and she was expecting a child. Further it was pleaded that in case of birth of the child he would be impleaded as the party to the main claim petition. 6. The notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents. It was contested by respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. The name of respondent No.2 was deleted by the trial court as the Tempo was not insured with respondent No.2. Ramesh Kumar was the driver and owner of the three-wheeler. He admitted the occurrence but according to him, the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the jeep. He prayed that the claim petition, if it is to be accepted, it should be accepted against rameshwar Dass, respondent No.2 and the State of Haryana. 7. The stand taken up by the respondent nos.2 and 3 that the accident has occurred on account of the negligence of Ramesh kumar, respondent No, 1. The jeep was being driven at a very slow speed and it was on the correct side. 7. The stand taken up by the respondent nos.2 and 3 that the accident has occurred on account of the negligence of Ramesh kumar, respondent No, 1. The jeep was being driven at a very slow speed and it was on the correct side. On the way to rohtak when the government jeep crossed bhalaut Distributory, some children were seen on the roadside. On seeing the children, the driver of the jeep slowed down the vehicle and took it on the left side. In the meantime, a Tempo was seen coming from the opposite side which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. He brought the vehicle on the wrong side of the road and caused the accident. One passenger of the Tempo was standing on the mudguard. Passenger was holding the luggage carrier with one hand and waiving his another hand. The passenger was under the influence of liquor. The driver of Tempo could not control the vehicle, as a result of which, the right side of the mudguard of the Tempo struck against the right foot board of the government jeep, as a result of which the passenger who was in standing position, fell down and he died at the spot. The passenger died as a result of his own negligence and the negligence of the driver of Tempo. Major J. S. Yadav, Xen, mechanical Division, P. W. D. (Bandr), was travelling in the government jeep in connection with the discharge of his official duties and the matter was reported to the police. 8. A rejoinder was filed by the claimant in which she reiterated her allegations made in the petition by denying those of the written statement and from the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and/or respondent No.3 drivers of the Tempo and the jeep? OPP (2) If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, if any, is the claimant entitled and from whom? opp (3) Relief. 9. The parties were given opportunities to lead evidence and on the conclusion of the proceedings the Tribunal held that the accident had been caused on account of the contributory negligence of both the drivers and, therefore, they are liable to pay the compensation equally. opp (3) Relief. 9. The parties were given opportunities to lead evidence and on the conclusion of the proceedings the Tribunal held that the accident had been caused on account of the contributory negligence of both the drivers and, therefore, they are liable to pay the compensation equally. Under issue no.2 the court only assessed the dependency of Indrawati at Rs.1,200 per year and by applying a multiplier of 15, awarded a compensation of Rs.18,000. Not satisfied with the award the present two appeals have been filed. Indrawati has prayed for the enhancement of the compensation. On the contrary, Ramesh Kumar prayed that the entire compensation should be paid by Haryana Government and its driver rameshwar Dass. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case. 11. It may be mentioned here that the appeal of Ramesh Kumar was dismissed vis-a-vis Indrawati by the Motion Bench itself but it was admitted only vis-a-vis respondent No.2 Rameshwar Dass and the state of Haryana. Through this judgment, i will determine two issues whether it is a case of contributory negligence and whether the compensation which has been awarded to Indrawati is just or not. I concur with the finding of the trial court that this accident is on account of the contributory negligence of both the drivers. Therefore, I adopt the reasons of the trial court on issue No.1 and decide that the compensation shall be paid to be claimants in equal share by Ramesh Kumar on one side and Rameshwar Dass and State of Haryana on the other side, jointly and severally. Rameshwar Dass has already expired. Therefore, 50 per cent of the compensation shall be paid by the State of Haryana. 12. With regard to the quantum of compensation, it will be appropriate for me if i reproduce para Nos.16 to 20 of the impugned award in order to appreciate as to whether the findings of the Tribunal on this issue can be sustained or not: " (16) Now adverting to the second question of quantum of compensation, if any, to be awarded to the petitioner, the statement of the petitioner is noteworthy. According to her, Rajinder singh deceased was her husband. He was elder to her by 5-7 years. He was employed as Stock Assistant in Veterinary Department. According to her, Rajinder singh deceased was her husband. He was elder to her by 5-7 years. He was employed as Stock Assistant in Veterinary Department. He was posted at jalbehra, District Ambala, at the time of accident. She then stated that she was the only claimant of the deceased. She was married with the deceased about 10 years back, but no child was born out of his wedlock. She then deposed that the deceased, her husband, used to pay her about Rs.1,100-1,200 per month out of his salary. Further in her cross examination, she admitted that she is prep class pass and also a diploma holder of drawing, i. e. , arts and crafts. She stated that she has also been working on temporary basis as a teacher. Then, she denied the suggestion that her relations were strained with her husband. But, further she admitted that there had been quarrel between them and she had been living for more time at her parental house. She admitted that she sent relevant papers for getting pecuniary benefits of service on account of death of her husband in the accident. She further admitted that her husband Rajinder, the deceased, was addicted to liquor and so she did not use to stay with him. In her cross-examination, she further denied the suggestion that she has one son through the loins of Rajinder Singh deceased. In the last, it was also denied by her that she had got written in her petition that she was pregnant at the time of filing of this petition. However, this fact is mentioned in para 2 of the petition. (17) Further, on the point of quantum of compensation, Rajeshwar, AW 1, clerk, Animal Husbandry Department, ambala, came into the witness-box and deposed that on 28.5.1985 Rajinder singh deceased was drawing his total salary at Rs.989 per month. Certificate exh. A-l has been placed on the file, in this behalf. In cross-examination, AW 1 admitted that papers regarding giving the benefit to the widow of the deceased were under process. Besides this, ex gratia is also given to the L. Rs. of the deceased. Certificate exh. A-l has been placed on the file, in this behalf. In cross-examination, AW 1 admitted that papers regarding giving the benefit to the widow of the deceased were under process. Besides this, ex gratia is also given to the L. Rs. of the deceased. (18) On the other hand, counsel for the respondents laid stress on the cross-examination of petitioner and then re ferred to the statement of RW 5 Sukhdei wife of Raj Pal and submitted that in fact, mother-in-law and son of the petitioner are also alive, but they have not been made party to the petition, by the petitioner knowingly and intentionally in order to grab herself entire compensation amount to be awarded to her by the Tribunal. In this regard, it is noteworthy that it was admitted by the petitioner in her claim petition (para 26) that she was pregnant from the loins of the deceased and a child was to be bora in the very near future. It is strange enough that petitioner kept mum while she came into the witness-box and did not say anything about the result of her pregnancy. In this connection, it becomes relevant when the respondents have suggested her that she had not mentioned about her minor son, allegedly born to her before her examination in this court on 14.8.1986. RW 5 Sukhdei, who was summoned by the respondents and is wife of Raj Pal, denied the suggestion that her son Rajinder Singh (who is also son of Raj Pal), died in a vehicular accident. This witness feigned to be ignorant, perhaps she might have colluded with the petitioner. In this behalf, it was noted that her demeanour was like that of a clever lady. However, there is no cogent evidence on the file upon which it could be concluded that the petitioner has a son or that her mother-in-law is also alive. Therefore, it will be futile exercise to go into this dispute regarding any living L. Rs. of the deceased. (18a) Again, resuming to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has given the income of the deceased at Rs.1,800 in the claim petition at the time of his death. PW 3 (petitioner), deposed that her husband used to pay to her Rs.1,100-1,200 per month. Certificate Exh. of the deceased. (18a) Again, resuming to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has given the income of the deceased at Rs.1,800 in the claim petition at the time of his death. PW 3 (petitioner), deposed that her husband used to pay to her Rs.1,100-1,200 per month. Certificate Exh. A-l produced by the petitioner and proved by AW 1 shows that total salary of the deceased was Rs.989 per month. Version of the petitioner, with regard to the salary or contribution by the deceased towards the petitioner is not convincing or based upon any cogent reasons. Further, it is admitted by the claimant herself that her husband deceased was also addicted to liquor and she used to reside at her parental house. All these facts go to show that there were strained relations of the petitioner with the deceased. It was further admitted by her in cross-examination that there had been quarrel between them. The petitioner is a trained teacher as she is holding Diploma in art and Craft and previously she had been working on temporary basis as a teacher. Her papers for getting the benefits from the department are also under process as stated by AW 1. (19) Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is not proved definitely on the file as to how much amount, out of his salary, the deceased used to pay to the petitioner. In as much, it is evident from the evidence that what the deceased used to earn, the same was burnt by him in taking liquor. This fact is admitted by the petitioner and so much so, on the day, he died on the accident, he was under the influence of liquor as proved from the report of chemical Examiner, Exh. R. Y. It has been laid down in Full Bench authority of our own Hon ble High Court in lachman Singh V/s. Gurmit Kaur, 1979 acj 170 (Pandh), that compensation to be assessed is the pecuniary loss caused to the dependant by the death of the person concerned, and no compensation is to be assessed on any extraneous considerations like love, affection, mental agony or any such similar consideration. It was further observed that for the purpose of calculating the just compensation annual dependency of the deceased should be determined in terms of annual loss accruing to them due to the abrupt termination of life. For this purpose, annual earnings of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount out of the same which he was spending for the maintenance of the dependants will be the determining factors. (20) After taking into consideration all the aspects of the case in hand, it would be reasonable to assume that the deceased was contributing only Rs.100 per month towards the petitioner. Thus, annual dependency of the petitioner comes to Rs.1,200. Age of the deceased has been given as 33 years in the petition and 35 years in the P. M. R. , Exh. R. X. According to the petitioner, the age of the deceased was 37-38 years. The petitioner herself was 31 years at the time of her examination. No issue was born to the petitioner in 10 years of her wedlock. Thus, keeping in view the age of the deceased and the petitioner and after considering uncertainties of life and the widow may re-marry and may not be dependent on the earnings of the husband, the suitable multiplier would be 15. Thus the total compensation works out to be Rs.1,200 x 15 = Rs.18,000 (rupees eighteen thousand only), together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation. It is made clear that the amount of compensation shall be satisfied by respondent no.1 to the extent of 50 per cent and remaining amount of compensation by respondent Nos.3 and 4 jointly and severally. " 13. I have gone through the evidence recorded by the Tribunal and the brief facts are that deceased was working as a Stock assistant in the Veterinary Hospital and he was earning Rs.989 as is proved by AW 1 Rajeshwar who categorically stated that on the date of accident deceased was drawing Rs.989 per month as total salary. Certificate A- l has also been proved by this witness. In the cross-examination, it has also come that the benefit of gratuity, and group insurance is also given to the deceased which is to the extent of Rs.5,000. Besides this ex gratia is also given to legal representatives of the deceased. Certificate A- l has also been proved by this witness. In the cross-examination, it has also come that the benefit of gratuity, and group insurance is also given to the deceased which is to the extent of Rs.5,000. Besides this ex gratia is also given to legal representatives of the deceased. The deceased was not qualified for the pensionable service but his dependants are entitled to the family pension. Indrawati, PW 2, had proved the age of her husband as 39 years. No doubt it is admitted by her that deceased was in the habit of taking liquor and used to quarrel with her but that is no ground to hold that the claimant was not dependent and that the dependency of the claimant was very nominal. 14. Keeping in view the income of the deceased, I calculate the dependency of both the claimants, i. e. , Indrawati and her minor child Deepak at Rs.400 per month and after applying a multiplier of 15, I award a sum of Rs.72,000 by way of compensation besides interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till payment.50 per cent of the total compensation shall be paid by Ramesh, driver and owner of the tempo and 50 per cent shall be paid by the state of Haryana within three months from the receipt of the copy of the order. 15. Resultantly, the appeal of Ramesh kumar is dismissed in toto while the appeal of Indrawati is hereby allowed.50 per cent of the compensation shall be deposited in the name of the minor son (Deepak)and 50 per cent shall be paid to Indrawati. Minor son will be able to get the amount from the bank after attaining the age of majority. Appeal allowed.