AMITAVA ROY, J.— This is an appeal filed by the claimants in a motor accident claim case for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In the case in hand the impugned judgment and order dated 16.3.2000 has been passed by the Member, MACT, Bongaigaon in M.A.C. Case No. 62 of 1996. It is this judgment and order which is in challenge in the present appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. G. Soren, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S.S. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. B. Buragohain, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. None has appeared for the respondent No.3. 3. The present appellants as the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Khanindra Narayan Chowdhury filed a claim application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bongaigaon praying for compensation of an amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- for the death of said Khanindra Narayan Choudhury in a motor accident on 2.4.96 on the 31 National Highway at Kukurmari under Dhaligaon Police Station, District Bongaigaon. In the said application the present respondents were arrayed as opposite party. The appellants/applicants therein disclosed that the age of the deceased at the time of his death was 34 years and that he was in service with the Bongaigaon Refinery and Petro-Chemical Ltd. having a monthly income of Rs. 5198/-. In the said application the appellants categorically mentioned that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle No.4285 (City bus) which suddenly knocked down the deceased from behind who was coming in Scooter along with his wife by the left side of the road. It was further mentioned that as a result of the accident both the deceased and his wife, suffered serious injuries resulting in their instantaneous death at the spot. The applicants further furnished the names and the particulars of the owner and driver of the offending vehicle ASU-4285 and in fact impleaded them as opposite party No.2 and 3 in the proceedings. It was further disclosed in the said application that the vehicle ASU-4285 was at the relevant time insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd., Bongaigaon Divisional Office, Bongaigaon, Assam. It was further disclosed in the said application that the vehicle ASU-4285 was at the relevant time insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd., Bongaigaon Divisional Office, Bongaigaon, Assam. It may be relevant to mention here that the application was filed by the present appellant No. 1 and 2 who were the parents of the deceased for themselves as well as on behalf of the appellant No.3,4,5,6 and 7 the sons and daughters of the deceased, who at their relevant time were all minors. It appears from the said application that it was also filed by the brothers and sisters of the deceased. 4. In the said application, the appellants/ claimants also prayed for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as interim relief under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 5. The learned Tribunal by order dated 30.4.97 granted the prayer for the interim relief as mentioned above. It is on record that the said amount was duly deposited by the respondent No. l and was also received on behalf of the appellants. 6. The proceeding before the learned Tribunal was contested by the respondent No. 1 and 2 namely the insurer and the owner of the vehicle ASU 4285. The respondent No.3 the driver of the said vehicle however did not contest the proceedings. He has not appeared in this appeal as well. 7. In its written statement, the respondent No. l had inter-alia contended that the application was not properly filed inasmuch as the brothers and sisters of the deceased who were not entitled to any compensation had been joined as applicants. It was specifically stated therein that the answering respondent was not connected in any manner with the claim proceedings and that the vehicle ASU 4285 was not insured with it at the relevant time, while ascertaining that it had no knowledge about the accident, it denied that the accident as alleged had occurred on 2.4.96 at 11.30 a.m. on the 31 National Highway at Kukurmari under Dhaligaon Police Station as alleged in the claim petition. In paragraph 16 of the written statement, the respondent No. 1 however took the following stand :- " That from the claim petition it appears that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased, Khanindra Narayan Choudhury, as such, the claimants are not entitled to get any compensation as prayed for." 8. It was also contended that as the accident had taken place involving the bus bearing No. ASU 4285 and a scooter being driven by the deceased as narrated in the claim application, the insurer of the Scooter was a necessary party and ought to have been joined as such in the claim proceedings. 9. In the written statement by the respondent No.2, owner of the bus ASU 4285, it was averred that he had no knowledge about the alleged accident. The statement with regard to age and income of the deceased as made in the claim application was denied. The age of the claims and the dependants of the deceased and the expenditure incurred in connection with the said accident were also denied. The statement with regard to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus was also denied by the respondent No.2. He contended that the bus, at the relevant time was being driven by his driver who held a valid driving licence and that in any case he was not liable to pay any compensation in view of the fact that at the time of the accident the bus was covered by a Insurance Policy issued by the respondent No. 1 /opposite party No. 1. It is significant to note that in his written statement, the respondent No.2 did not plead any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in the accident. As stated above the driver of the bus, ASU 4285 did not appear or contest the proceedings. 10. On these pleadings the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1) Whether there is cause of action for the present claim petition ? 2) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. ASU 4285? 3) Whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased's scooterist in causing the accident? 4) Whether the insurer and the owner of the scooter are necessary parties to the claim petition? 2) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. ASU 4285? 3) Whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased's scooterist in causing the accident? 4) Whether the insurer and the owner of the scooter are necessary parties to the claim petition? 5) Whether the claimant are entitled to get any compensation, if so, how much and by whom it is to be paid? 6) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any relief/reliefs ? 11. Thereafter the parties examined their witnesses in support of their respective cases. The appellants/claimants examined three witnesses including the appellant No.l and the respondent No.I/ insurer examined two witnesses. The respondent No.2, owner of the bus did not examine any witness. The appellant and the respondent No.l also proved some documents in support of the oral evidence. 12. The learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order held that the appellants/claimants were entitled to a sum of Rs.2,05,286/- as compensation. In arriving at the said figure the learned Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence in the accident and apportioned the negligence of the two vehicles as 50 : 50. The learned Tribunal, accepting the age of the deceased at the time of his death to be 45 years, applied a multiplier of 13. It computed loss annual dependency of Rs. 31,584/- and arrived at the figure of Rs. 4,10,592/- by using the multiplier of 13. However as the Tribunal held that the deceased had contributed to the accident to the extend of 50%, it awarded to the appellants, compensation to the extent of 50% of the computed amount i.e. Rs. 4,10,592/-. Consequently the net amount awarded was Rs. 2,05,286/- as indicated above. The Tribunal further directed, the amount so awarded would be subject to deduction of the amount of interim relief already paid and out of the total award, an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- would be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank in the name of five (5) children of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per head until they attained majority and that the rest would go to the old parents. 13. The learned Tribunal decided the issue No. 1 in favour of the appellants. 1,25,000/- would be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank in the name of five (5) children of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per head until they attained majority and that the rest would go to the old parents. 13. The learned Tribunal decided the issue No. 1 in favour of the appellants. With regard to the issue No.2, the Tribunal, while noticing the stand of the parties in their pleadings and on considering the evidence on record held that the driver of the bus ASU 4285 was not careful and diligent in driving the bus at the relevant time and that he did not take reasonable care to avert the accident. It further held that the driver of the bus was rash in driving the vehicle when the accident took place. It may however be pertinent to mention here that while appreciating the evidence, the learned Tribunal discarded the evidence of PW-3 who was examined by the appellants claimants as an eye witness of the incident. The learned Tribunal branded this witness as a doubtful witness only on the basis of a statement of this witness in his cross examination that he was not examined by the Investigating Officer in the connected police case. While deciding the above issue the learned Tribunal took into consideration Ext-B, an investigation report submitted by the surveyor engaged by the respondent No. 1 insurer to investigate into the accident. The learned Tribunal took note of the contents of the said report to the effect that at the place of the accident there was a stationary city bus No. ASG 935 facing towards Bongaigaon and that when the driver of the city bus ASU 4285 was trying to overtake the said stationery city bus, all on a sudden the Scooterist, driving the Scooter As-1971921 took a turn in front of stationery bus ASU 935 and dashed and collided with the offending city bus 4285 causing the accident. 14. The core issue in the case in hand is issue No.3 i.e. with regard to contributory negligence. The learned Tribunal in deciding the issue heavily relied on Ext-B and held that as the accident had taken place near the stationery bus, both the drivers of the offending bus as well the Scooter were negligent and their negligence contributed to the accident. The learned Tribunal in deciding the issue heavily relied on Ext-B and held that as the accident had taken place near the stationery bus, both the drivers of the offending bus as well the Scooter were negligent and their negligence contributed to the accident. It further held that the Scooterist had not taken every precaution reasonably expected from him and came to the conclusion that the Scooterist was equally negligent for the happening of the accident. 15. While deciding issue No.4 the learned Tribunal noticed, that admittedly two vehicles namely bus ASU 4285 and the Scooter AS-19/1921 were involved in the accident. Considering the evidence on record the learned Tribunal held that the Scooter, at the relevant time belonged to one Sri Dinabandhu Roy and that it did not have any insurance cover after 1.4.94. It however took into consideration Ext-1, the driving licence of the deceased proved and exhibited in the proceedings. It finally held that in absence of the owner and the Insurance Company of the scooter, the appellants applicants would not be entitled to recover the full amount of compensation from the respondent opposite party. 16. While deciding issue No.5 and 6, the learned Tribunal held that the deceased had a valid driving licence at the time of the incident. The Tribunal accepted the age of the deceased to be 45 years as recorded in the post mortem report, Ext-6. The learned Tribunal also accepted the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 5198/-. It also took into consideration the fact that the deceased had left behind 5 minor children and his old parents. However by proceeding on the basis that the deceased had contributed to the happening of the accident to the extent of 50%, it awarded a sum of Rs. 2,05,2867- as mentioned above. 17. The learned counsel for the appellants has urged before us that the learned Tribunal had erred in law and in facts in holding that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence in the present case. He further argued that the learned Tribunal ought to have applied a multiplier of 15 instead of 13 as done. He has further argued that the impugned judgment and order suffers from a gross illegality in view of the fact that the learned Tribunal did not grant any interest on the awarded amount. .18. He further argued that the learned Tribunal ought to have applied a multiplier of 15 instead of 13 as done. He has further argued that the impugned judgment and order suffers from a gross illegality in view of the fact that the learned Tribunal did not grant any interest on the awarded amount. .18. Refuting the above submission, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents assiduously argued that the impugned judgment and order is legal and valid in all respect. They contended that it was apparent from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence for the accident and the learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in opportunity the negligence of the drivers of the two vehicle as 50:50. They further argued that the age of the deceased have been correctly accepted to be 45 years at the time of his death and the multiplier of 13 was rightly chosen by the learned Tribunal. With regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants pertaining to grant of interest, the counsel for the respondents have submitted that the claimants in a claim application cannot claim interest on the awarded sum as a matter of right and it is always within the discretion of the Tribunal to allow or refuse interest under the Act. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal rightly did not grant any interest. 19. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. Before we advert to those we consider it fit and proper to re-consider the pleadings of the parties and re-appreciate the evidence on record. 20. On a plain reading of the pleadings of the parties it is abundantly clear that the no clear and specific plea of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased had been taken independently by any of the contesting respondents. The respondent No.l even went to the extent of denying that the bus ASU-4285 was insured with it at the time of the accident. On the other hand-while contending that it has no personal knowledge about the accident the respondent No.l denied the accident. The respondent No.l even went to the extent of denying that the bus ASU-4285 was insured with it at the time of the accident. On the other hand-while contending that it has no personal knowledge about the accident the respondent No.l denied the accident. Further it took a stand that it appeared from the claim petition (emphasised supplied) that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased, Khanindra Narayan Choudhury. The respondent No.2, owner while contending that he had no knowledge about the accident, denied the allegation of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. It however did not take any stand that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence. In our opinion, the driver of the bus would have been the best person to narrate as to how the accident had taken place. As noticed above the driver did not contest the proceedings. Therefore in our opinion the owner of the bus, the respondent No.2 was best person to comment as to whether that the deceased also contributed to the accident. From the written statements of the contesting respondents it is not possible to gather any material to indicate that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence in the accident. PW-1 is the father of the deceased. He admittedly is not an eye witness. He proved the driving licence of the deceased (Ext-1), the salary certificate of the deceased (Ext-2) the FIR of the incident (Ext-3), the seizure list of the Scooter and the connected documents (Ext-4) and the post mortem report of the deceased and his wife (Ext-5 and Ext-6). He also stated in his evidence about the age of the deceased and his wife and of the dependents left behind by the deceased. He has mentioned in his evidence that he has some income from his cultivation and that the sons and daughters of the deceased were under his custody and care. 21. PW-2 is an Officer of the BRPL who proved and exhibited the salary certificate pertaining to the deceased. 22. PW-3 Bhaiti Das is said to be an eye witness of the incident. According to him the accident took place on 2.4.96 at about 11.30 A.M. He said that at that time he was at the place of occurrence. 21. PW-2 is an Officer of the BRPL who proved and exhibited the salary certificate pertaining to the deceased. 22. PW-3 Bhaiti Das is said to be an eye witness of the incident. According to him the accident took place on 2.4.96 at about 11.30 A.M. He said that at that time he was at the place of occurrence. He further stated that just before the accident the deceased and his wife were travelling in a Scooter, proceeding from West to East by the left side of the road. The city bus was also proceeding in the said direction and it dashed against the Scooter from behind and dragged the scooter to some distance as a result of which, both the driver of the scooter and pillion rider were killed on the spot. He further stated that the bus had come at a high speed without sounding any horn. He mentioned the number of the bus as ASU 4285. He categorically stated that the bus was responsible for the accident. Nothing noteworthy could be elicited from the cross examination of this witness so as to shake his testimony in the examination in chief. 23. DW-1, examined on behalf of the respondent No.l insurer, was an official from the office of the District Transport Officer, Bongaigaon. He stated that Ext-1 the driving licence of the deceased had not been issued from his office. In cross examination he admitted that Ext-1 could have been issued from some other office. He admitted that Ext-1 was a driving licence. In re-examination the witness could not say, as to whether the said licence, Ext-1 was genuine or not. 24. DW-2, at the relevant time, was, a senior Assistant of the Branch Office of the National Insurance Company at Bongaigaon. The sum and substance of his evidence is that in the case of any accident, an enquiry is made through an authorised expert/surveyor. He stated that Shri S.K. Paul was an Investigator engaged by the Insurance Company. The said Investigator made an investigation and submitted report Ext-B. He admitted that he had not seen the accident and that in the first information report relating to the accident and in the claim application it was clearly mentioned that the bus had dashed against the scooter from behind. 25. A brief reference to the documentary evidence is also felt necessary. 25. A brief reference to the documentary evidence is also felt necessary. Ext-2, the salary certificate of the deceased shows that he used to get a monthly salary of Rs. 5198/-. The Ext-3, the FIR, lodged on 2.4.96, the date of the accident, disclosed that the bus ASU 4285 driven in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against the Scooter AS-19/1921 as a result of which Khanindra Narayan Choudhury and his wife died at the spot. The post mortem report Ext-5 and 6 confirmed the death of Khanindra Narayan Choudhury and his wife Khirodabala Choudhury due to severe injuries on the head and other parts of the body. In the report Ext-B, the Surveyor/Investigator mentioned that during the investigation it appeared (emphasised supplied) that on 2.4.96, bus No. ASU 4285 was proceeding from Kahalgaon and at about 11.25 A.M. while it reached at Kukurmari Chariali, the driver found ASG 935, city bus standing just at the crossing of the Chariali. When, the said bus (ASU 4285) after overtaking, the bus ASG 935, started proceeding towards Bongaigaon, suddenly a Scooter No. AS-19/1921 driven by the deceased with his wife as the pillion driver came from the north side of the standing city bus ASG 935, and took a turn towards Shaligaon just at the front of the bus (ASG 935) and dashed against the bus, ASU 4285 in the front left side of it. The said report Ext-B further disclosed that the driver of the bus ASU 4285 tried his best to stop the vehicle by applying brakes out due to sudden appearance of scooter before it, the vehicle could not be stopped. 26. On a reading of the pleadings of the parties we are not in a position to hold that the respondents opposite party had taken a clear and specific stand independently of their own that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence in the happening of the accident. We have closely examined the claim petition as well. We are unable to read anything therein to even suggest that the appellants claimants had admitted that the accident had occurred due to any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. We have referred to the claim petition because according to the respondent No. 1 insurer, the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence as appearing from the statements made in the claim petition. 27. We have referred to the claim petition because according to the respondent No. 1 insurer, the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence as appearing from the statements made in the claim petition. 27. As alluded above, the appellants claimants have relied on PW-3 Bhaiti Das as an eye witness to the incident. On appreciation of his evidence as a whole we do not find any reason to discard his evidence. His narration of the accident has been clear and unequivocal. The learned Tribunal has rejected his evidence only on the ground that he was not, examined by the Investigating Officer in the criminal case registered in connection with the accident. In our opinion considering the intrinsic value of the evidence of the witness, the reason cited by the learned Tribunal as above is not sufficient to leave out of consideration the evidence of this witness. As stated above PW-1 and 2 by proving Ext-2 have proved the monthly income of the deceased and the dependency of the parents of the deceased and his minor children, the appellants herein. 28. Though an attempt was made on behalf of the respondent No. 1/insurer to prove that Ext-1, the driving licence of the deceased was not a genuine one it failed to do so. Ext-B which appears to be the trump card for the respondent No. 1 insurer in support of its so-called plea of contributory negligence, does not disclose the basis on which the investigator had formed an opinion that the Scooter had contributed to the accident in the manner as set out in the report. No name of any witness who had seen the accident had been mentioned. There is no reference of any statement of any such witness recorded by the investigator in support of the version of the accident as set out in the report. We also do not find any other document on record in support of the findings in the said report. In view of the above, we do not consider it safe and proper to conclude that Ext-B should be accepted as a clinching evidence in support of the plea that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence for the accident. 29. We also do not find any other document on record in support of the findings in the said report. In view of the above, we do not consider it safe and proper to conclude that Ext-B should be accepted as a clinching evidence in support of the plea that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence for the accident. 29. In view of the evidence on record, as noticed above, is it thus not possible to hold that the respondent-opposite party have been able to discharge their burden of proving that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence. It is an accepted position of law that as in negligence, the onus is on the defendant to prove the plaintiffs contributory negligence. In our considered opinion, there is no evidence worth the name, in support of the above plea of their respondent No. I/insurer. We are therefore constrained to hold that the respondent opposite party have failed to prove that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence in the present case as alleged. The issue of contributory negligence in the field of accident under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came up for consideration before this Court in a case reported in 1999(2) GLT 202 : (2000) 3 GLR 373 (Kangujam Ongbi Thuibi Devi vs. State ofManipur and others) wherein this Court on a detailed consideration of the principles relating to the contributory negligence as enunciated and evolved from time to time and taking note of various decisions of different courts held, that the basic principle of contributory negligence in relation to accident under the Motor Vehicles Act is that the defendant has to prove that the plaintiff had failed to take precaution against the possible danger and that those precautions, if taken would have been effective to protect him against the danger which occurred. In the case in hand when we weigh the evidence of PW-3 against the report Ex-B we are persuaded to lean in favour of accepting the former. The evidence of PW-3 is clear and unimpeachable. The report Ex-B is vague and unconvincing. As noticed above, the plea of contributory negligence taken by the opposite party is also a halfhearted one. We are therefore not inclined to deny the children, who had lost their parents in the tragic accident from a just compensation on the basis of unproved plea of contributory negligence. The report Ex-B is vague and unconvincing. As noticed above, the plea of contributory negligence taken by the opposite party is also a halfhearted one. We are therefore not inclined to deny the children, who had lost their parents in the tragic accident from a just compensation on the basis of unproved plea of contributory negligence. For the view that we have taken with regard to the issue of contributory negligence, considering the pleadings of the parties and the state of evidence on record, we are not inclined to further burden this decision with the other pronouncements of the Apex Court on this aspect of the matter. Suffice it to mention that in the present case the respondents opposite party have failed to prove that the deceased was guilty of any conduct involving want of ordinary care and caution on his part and that he was guilty of any negligence which had contributed to the accident and the consequence complained of. With this background we now proceed to ascertain as to whether the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in the present case is just in the facts and circumstance of the case. 30. The learned Tribunal accepted Rs. 51987- as the monthly income of the deceased and proceeded to compute the amount of compensation taking the age of the deceased as 45 years. On the said basis, the Tribunal computed the annual income of the deceased to be Rs. 62,376/-. It further held that the annual loss of dependency would be Rs. 31,5847- i.e 50% of the net annual income. We are of the opinion that the annual loss of dependency has not been correctly assessed. In our view if Rs. 5198/- is taken to be the monthly income, 173rd thereof is to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The monthly dependency, therefore conies to about Rs. 3466/-. The annual dependency would accordingly be 3466 x 12 - i.e Rs. 41,592/-. If the multiplier of 13 is taken, the total amount comes the Rs. 5,40,696/-approximately. We have already held that the respondent opposite party have failed to prove that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence. In our view therefore, no deduction on that count is permissible. To the above amount we are inclined to add an amount of Rs. 20,000/-towards loss of consortium, less of estate, funeral expenses etc. 5,40,696/-approximately. We have already held that the respondent opposite party have failed to prove that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence. In our view therefore, no deduction on that count is permissible. To the above amount we are inclined to add an amount of Rs. 20,000/-towards loss of consortium, less of estate, funeral expenses etc. The total amount therefore comes to Rs. 5,60,696/- approximately. The appellants claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 9% on the above amount from the date of the, application. We have noticed in the evidence that the appellant No.l is aged about 60 years and he has his own source of income through cultivation. From the particulars furnished in the application, we find that out of the five children left-behind by the deceased, four of them have already become major and only Shri Dambarudhar Choudhury, son of the deceased, is still a minor. We therefore direct that out of the total awarded amount together with interest, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- would be paid to the appellant No.l and 2, the parents of the deceased and the remaining amount would be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank in the name of the five children of the deceased in equal shares. 31. For the view that we have taken on the plea of contributory negligence as indicated above, we are of the considered opinion that the claim of the appellants, claimants should not suffer any set back for not impleading the owner of the scooter in the proceedings. As admittedly, on the date of the accident, the scooter was not under any insurance cover, the question of impleading the insurer thereof does not arise. As a corollary, therefore it would be the liability of the insurer of the bus i.e. the respondent No.l to pay the amount of compensation as computed above. The respondent No.l would issue, separate crossed cheques in the name of the appellants No.l to 6. In respect of the appellant No.7 the cheque would be issued in the name of the appellant No.l on his behalf. The amount of cheques in favour of appellants No.3,4,5,6 and 7 will be in respect of their shares of the compensation amount as indicated above. It is needless to say that the claim on behalf of the other sons and daughters of the appellant No. 1 is rejected. 32. The amount of cheques in favour of appellants No.3,4,5,6 and 7 will be in respect of their shares of the compensation amount as indicated above. It is needless to say that the claim on behalf of the other sons and daughters of the appellant No. 1 is rejected. 32. With the above modification in the impugned judgment and order, the present appeal is disposed of being partly allowed. There would be no order as to costs.