BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THROUGH this appeal, award of Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Sohagpur in Claim Case No. 7 of 1993 dated 21. 3. 1997 has been challenged. ( 2 ) HARJIT Singh (18) was carrying on restaurant at Pachmarhi (Tourist Resort)under the name and style of 'khalsa Hotel and Restaurant'. On 26. 10. 1992, he was going on his scooter No. 50 UTT 2269 with mahesh Kanojiya, pillion rider, towards forty Holiday Home, Pachmarhi. Bus No. CIW 7249 owned by the appellant M. P. State Road Transport Corporation and driven by Charan Singh came from opposite side and hit the scooter of Harjit Singh. As a result of the accident, Harjit Singh and Mahesh Kanojiya suffered injuries. They were shifted to Hospital at Pachmarhi. Later Harjit Singh was shifted to Medical college Hospital, Jabalpur where he died on 27. 10. 1992. Allegation is that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver otherwise it would not have happened. Report was lodged at Police Station, Pachmarhi by Mahesh Kanojiya and crime No. 101 of 1992 for offences under sections 279/337/ 304-A, Indian Penal Code was registered against the bus driver. Deceased Harjit singh left behind Indrajit Singh, Satnam singh (brothers) and Shantibai (mother ). Compensation of Rs. 44,64,000 is claimed with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. ( 3 ) APPELLANTS/non-CLAIMANTS denied the allegations. It is stated that the bus was picking up passengers at Forty Holiday home, Pachmarhi when the scooter driven by the deceased rashly and negligently struck against the bus. Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the bus driver and the claimants are not entitled to compensation, claim liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) ON the pleadings of parties, Claims tribunal framed four issues. Parties led evidence and finding recorded by Claims tribunal is that the accident took place but it was result of contributory negligence of drivers of both the vehicles. Deceased was 18 years old at the time of accident earning rs. 2,000 per month. Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 2,90,000 is assessed but half of it has been made payable to the claimants on the ground that the deceased was also responsible for the accident to the extent of 50 per cent. Deceased was 18 years old at the time of accident earning rs. 2,000 per month. Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 2,90,000 is assessed but half of it has been made payable to the claimants on the ground that the deceased was also responsible for the accident to the extent of 50 per cent. The compensation has been made payable with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Appellants are not satisfied with this award, therefore, it has been challenged through this appeal. Claimants are also not satisfied with the same, therefore, through cross-objections, they seek enhancement of compensation and reversal of finding regarding contributory negligence of the deceased. ( 5 ) WITH the assistance of the learned counsel for the respondents, record of the case is examined and evidence read extensively. Two questions fall for consideration, first being whether the finding of the claims Tribunal that the deceased also contributed to the accident is sustainable and the second being whether compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just compensation in this case. ( 6 ) APPELLANTS/non-CLAIMANTS produced two witnesses, namely, Charan Singh (driver) and Beni Prasad (conductor) in this case. Both the witnesses state that the bus was stationary when deceased struck the scooter against it, resulting in injuries to both the occupants of the scooter. They were shifted to the hospital at Pachmarhi in the jeep owned by Ashok Kumar, AW 4. Claimants have produced Mahesh Kano-jiya, AW 3 and Ashok Kumar, AW 4, to prove that the bus driver caused the accident. Mahesh Kanojiya was pillion rider, therefore, he has stated that bus was being driven at the speed of 60/70 kmph. Similar is the statement of Ashok Kumar whose name finds mention in the first information report. Both these witnesses are holding the bus driver responsible for causing the accident. The statement that the bus was parked on the roadside and the deceased hit the scooter against the stationary bus is not believable for the reasons that the driver and the conductor wanted to escape the liability of the accident, therefore, they stated that the bus was stationary. Further, in case the bus had been parked on the roadside, there could be no reason for the scooter to hit the stationary bus particularly when there is no evidence that the deceased did not know driving and was not aware of topography of the area. Further, in case the bus had been parked on the roadside, there could be no reason for the scooter to hit the stationary bus particularly when there is no evidence that the deceased did not know driving and was not aware of topography of the area. He was a hotelier of the place, therefore, well conversant with the topography of the roads and driving skill. Further, Mahesh Kanojiya also supports the version of Ashok Kumar, who has stated that the bus was being driven at the speed of 70/80 kmph and hit scooter with such an impact that the scooter was dragged to a distance of 15 ft. Ashok Kumar, AW 4, states that he provided his jeep for carrying the injured to the hospital. He is not related to either of the two occupants of the scooter, therefore, he is an independent witness to the occurrence. He corroborates the statement of Mahesh Kumar kanojiya. Moreover, the appellants/non-claimants did not set up their defence at the initial stage when reply was filed. It was by way of amendment to their reply that defence that the bus was stationary and the scooter struck against it has been taken by them. In case the bus was stationary and the scooter was struck against it by the deceased, nothing prevented the appellants from taking this defence in the reply filed at the initial stage of the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. Driver of the bus did not lodge any report. Police registered the case against the driver on the report of mahesh Kanojiya and obviously it filed the challan against the bus driver after investigation of the case revealing that the driver of the bus was responsible for the accident. For all these reasons, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the deceased was equally responsible for the accident is not supported by evidence, therefore, set aside. ( 7 ) NEXT question is what compensation is awardable to the claimants. As stated, the deceased was carrying on restaurant 'khalsa Hotel and Restaurant' at Pachmarhi. Pachmarhi is a famous tourist resort of madhya Pradesh. It attracts large number of tourists from all over the world. Therefore, hotels and restaurants should have brisk business. However, Shantibai, the mother of deceased, has stated that the deceased was giving her Rs. 200 per day. As stated, the deceased was carrying on restaurant 'khalsa Hotel and Restaurant' at Pachmarhi. Pachmarhi is a famous tourist resort of madhya Pradesh. It attracts large number of tourists from all over the world. Therefore, hotels and restaurants should have brisk business. However, Shantibai, the mother of deceased, has stated that the deceased was giving her Rs. 200 per day. Evidence also suggests that Inderjit Singh, brother of deceased, was also working in the same hotel and restaurant. Therefore, both of them were earning Rs. 200 per day as said by her. Though there are indications that income was Rs. 300-400 per day but fact remains that Shantibai (mother) was being given Rs. 200 per day by both of them. Therefore, without making deduction of one-third towards personal expenditure, desirable it would be to assess the dependency on half of the amount paid to the mother by both the brothers. Accordingly, the monthly dependency would be rs. 3,000 and yearly Rs. 36,000. At the time of accident, deceased was 18 years old, therefore, multiplier of 16 is applicable in this case. Thus computed, compensation comes to Rs. 5,76,000 (Rs. 36,000 x 16)plus Rs. 11,500 (Rs. 7,000 for loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 2,500 for loss to the estate and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses), totalling to Rs. 5,87,500. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, appeal is dismissed and cross-objections are allowed. Compensation of Rs. 5,87,500 (rupees five lakh, eighty-seven thousand five hundred)is awarded to the claimants (respondents)holding owner and driver liable to pay jointly and severally. Enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent (nine per cent) per annum from the date of application till payment. The compensation will be payable to the claimants as follows: (1) Shantibai (mother) 80 per cent (2) Satnam Singh 10 per cent (3) Inderjit Singh 10 per cent costs on parties. Appeal dismissed; cross-objection allowed. .