Judgment Dinesh Maheswari, J.-This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by owner of the offending vehicle against the award dated 22.02.1996 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barmer in Claim Case No. 20 of 1995 questioning the legality and propriety of awarding of compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,15,400/-to the respondent-claimants. 2. Background facts relating to and necessary for determination of the questions involved in this appeal are that the claimants Smt. Amru, Mahendra and Kaushalya submitted a claim application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Barmer against the Union of India, Captain Javed Syed and Iqbal Chand with the averments that Chetan Ram, husband of the applicant No. 1 and father of the applicants No. 2 and 3, was riding his Rajdoot Motorcycle bearing registration No. TMM 2106 and was going to his village Garal from Barmer on 21.01.1996 with one Babulal accompanying him. At about 7.30 PM on Barmer-Mahabar road, about 2 kilometers from Mahabar, suddenly a vehicle bearing No. ZP-4159 belonging to the non-applicants No. 1 and 2 was brought on the road from the field camp through a bypass lane by the non-applicant No. 3 rashly and negligently and it hit the motorcycle whereby Chatan Ram sustained grievous injuries on head and other parts of body and succumbed to the injuries on the spot and Babulal also sustained several injuries 3. After stating the liability of the non-applicants towards compensation, for the purpose of quantification of compensation, it was stated that the deceased was 27 years of age, was self-employed having a bicycle shop at Barmer and was earning Rs. 150/-per day i.e. Rs. 4,500/-per month and would have earned upto 65 years of age, therefore, an amount of Rs. 20,52,000/-was claimed towards loss of income. Further amount towards loss of consortium and company for the applicants No. 1, loss of love, affection and guidance of their father for applicant No. 2 and 3 and property damage of motorcycle were also stated and in all a claim of Rs. 22,52,000/-was lodged with the submissions that the deceased was the sole earning member of the family and the applicant No. 1 and the children have been rendered totally supportless. The non-applicant No. 3, driver of the vehicle remained ex parte. 22,52,000/-was lodged with the submissions that the deceased was the sole earning member of the family and the applicant No. 1 and the children have been rendered totally supportless. The non-applicant No. 3, driver of the vehicle remained ex parte. However, a reply to the claim application was submitted on behalf of the non-applicants No. 1 and 2 and while admitting the factum of accident and stating general denial of the claim averments, it was alleged that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the deceased Chetan Ram who collided with the military vehicle for his own mistake and the vehicle of the non-applicants was coming at a reasonable speed and in the right direction and that the deceased was not even qualified to drive the motorcycle nor he had any driving licence. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for determination of the questions involved in the case,- j ls ekgckj jks ^^1-D;k fnukad 21-01-1995 dks 'kke ds djhc 7-30 ih,e ij ckM+esM+ ij egkckj ls 2 fdeh- vkxs ehBM+k dh rjQ jks[;k tstM+ ij ckbZ ikl ds ikl foizkFkhZ la[;k rhu us okgu laM ih 4159 dks rsxfr o ykijokgh ls pykdj izkFkhZ dh eksVj lkbZfdy ds VDdj ekjh ftlls izkFkhZ dh nq?kZVuk LFky ij gh e`R;q gks xbZA ¼izkFkhx.k½ 2- D;k izkFkhZx.k foizkFkhZx.k ls :i;s 22]52]000@& {kfriwfrZ ds :i esa izkIRk djus ds vf /kdkjh gS] ;fn gka rks fdl foizkFkhZ ls fdruh jkf'kA ¼izkFkhZx.k½ 3- D;k e`rd psrujke ds ikl eksVj lkbZfdy pykus dk ykblsal ugha Fkk] blfy, foizkFkhZx.k {kfriwfrZ dh jkf k vnk djus ds fy, mRkjnk;h ugha gSA ¼foizkFkhZx.k½ 4- vuqrks"k A** 5. In oral evidence, the applicant Smt. Amru examined herself as AW-1 and produced Karan Singh, landlord of the bicycle shop of the deceased as AW-2, Ganga Ram, uncle of the deceased as AW-3 and Babulal, pillion rider of the motorcycle and eye-witness to the accident as AW-4; where driver of the military vehicle, Iqbal Chand was examined by the non-applicants as NAW-1. 6. 6. In the documentary evidence, certified copy of charge-sheet submitted against Iqbal Chand has been produced as Exhibit-1, FIR No. 9 of 1995 as Exhibit-2, written report made by Captain Javed Syed on 21.01.1995 at 11.30 PM as Exhibit-3, report made by Babulal to the Police Station, Sadar on 22.01.1995 at 10.50 AM as Exhibit-4, site inspection report as Exhibit 5, site plan as Exhibit-6, MTOs report on the condition of military vehicle as Exhibit-7, MTOs report on the condition of motorcycle as Exhibit 8, Supardginama of the military vehicle as Exhibit-9 and postmortem report of the deceased Chetan Ram as Exhibit-10. 7. After hearing the parties, the learned Judge of the Tribunal proceeded to decide the questions involved in the case by the impugned award dated 22.02.1996. Issue No. 1 relating to the comprehensive question about rash and negligent driving by the non-applicant No. 3 and causing the accident resulting in death of Chetan Ram has been decided with reference to the evidence of AW-4 Babulal who was accompanying the deceased Chetan Ram on motorcycle at the time of accident. The learned Judge referred to the testimony of Babulal to the effect that the military vehicle came from the left side of the road and hit the motorcycle; lights of the military vehicle were not switched on; the driver did not sound the horn; and the vehicle came in a brisk speed. The witness stated that on his asking the vehicle driver gave out his name Iqbal Chand; that Chetan Ram died on the spot and he too fell unconscious looking at Chetan Ram. The learned Judge also referred to the statement of NAW-1, Iqbal Chand who stated that there was no mistake on his part; both the persons riding the motorcycle were drunk and head light of the motorcycle was also not put on. After referring to the aforesaid part of the testimony of these two witnesses, the learned Judge reached the conclusion that Iqbal Chand was driving the military vehicle rashly and negligently and he hit the motorcycle driven by Chetan Ram and because of the accident Chetan Ram died on the spot. After referring to the aforesaid part of the testimony of these two witnesses, the learned Judge reached the conclusion that Iqbal Chand was driving the military vehicle rashly and negligently and he hit the motorcycle driven by Chetan Ram and because of the accident Chetan Ram died on the spot. Regarding the testimony of Iqbal Chand, the learned Judge observed that although he had rebutted the statement of Babulal but he was himself driving the military vehicle and, therefore, his statement could not be accepted that in fact he was not driving rashly or negligently or that he did not cause the accident with Chetan Ram. The learned Judge also commented that the person causing the accident never accepts that at the time of accident he was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and, therefore, the testimony of Babulal cannot be disbelieved and nothing has come out of the cross-examination of this witness Babulal by which it might appear that at the time of accident, the non-applicant No. 3 was not driving the vehicle rashly or negligently. On these considerations, issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the applicants. It may be pointed out at this stage itself that in the entire discussion on issue No. 1, rather in the entire discussion in the impugned award, not a single documentary evidence has been even remotely referred. 8. Issue No. 3 in this case was framed on the question of want of driving licence with the deceased Chetan Ram and in relation thereto, the learned Judge observed that it was not relevant in this case if Chetan Ram had driving licence or not and the only question was to consider the negligence in driving of military vehicle by the non-applicant No. 3 and hitting Chetan Ram which had already been concluded in issue No. 1 against the non-applicants. 9. While dealing with the question of quantum of compensation, the learned Judge referred to the evidence led by the applicants and found that the evidence was produced to the effect that the deceased was running a bicycle shop at Nehru Nagar, Barmer but it was not established that he was actually earning Rs. 150-200/-per day but such a person could be expected to earn Rs. 50/-per day and could contribute Rs. 30/-per day to the applicants which means Rs. 900/-per month and Rs. 150-200/-per day but such a person could be expected to earn Rs. 50/-per day and could contribute Rs. 30/-per day to the applicants which means Rs. 900/-per month and Rs. 10,800/-per annum; and, as the deceased was 27 years of age, for the next 38 years he would have contributed towards maintenance of the applicants which comes to Rs. 4,10,400/-(Rs. 900/-x 12 x 38). For the young person dying in accident, his wife was held entitled to further compensation of Rs. 3,000/-for mental agony and the children at Rs. 1,000/-each and, therefore, it was held that the claimants were entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 4,15,000/-towards compensation for which the non-applicants were jointly and severally liable. 10. On the considerations aforesaid, the Tribunal proceeded to pass an award for a sum of Rs. 4,15,400/-in favour of the claimants against the non-applicants and adjusting Rs. 50,000/-paid as interim compensation, the claimants were held entitled to an amount of Rs. 3,65,400/-with interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the date of application. 11. The appellant Union of India, has assailed the award aforesaid in the present appeal as being contrary to law and facts and it has been submitted that the statements of Babulal have been accepted as gospel truth without proper analysis of the material available on record; that the testimony of NAW-1, Iqbal Chand has been wrongly discarded; and that the want of driving licence with Chetan Ram has also been wrongly ignored. The quantification of compensation has also been assailed bas being highly excessive by adopting a multiplier of 38. Learned Counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, has supported the findings of rash and negligent driving by the military vehicle driver Iqbal Chand has further submitted that the award in question was not excessive but was inadequate and was required to be modified and enhanced for the reason that the income of the deceased was clearly established at Rs. 150/-per day and in view of the age of the deceased of 27 years, the multiplicand ought to have been arrived at after making reasonable enhancement for future prospects and then a multiplier of 18 ought to be applied; and that even the amount for the wife and children towards non-pecuniary damages being grossly inadequate, deserves to be enhanced. 12. 150/-per day and in view of the age of the deceased of 27 years, the multiplicand ought to have been arrived at after making reasonable enhancement for future prospects and then a multiplier of 18 ought to be applied; and that even the amount for the wife and children towards non-pecuniary damages being grossly inadequate, deserves to be enhanced. 12. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having scanned through the entire record, this Court finds the impugned award being erroneous on every score. The findings on issues No. 1 and 3 related to the aspect of negligence remain wholly perverse and even the quantification of compensation has been made contrary to the evidence on record and so also the principles of law applicable to the such assessment. The impugned award cannot be sustained on any of its findings and deserves to be set aside and a correct award deserves to the made. NEGLIGENCE: 13. In this case, as noticed hereinabove, the learned Judge of the Tribunal has chosen to rely on the testimony of Babulal, AW-4 and has discarded the testimony of Iqbal Chand, NAW-1, driver of the military vehicle on the consideration that any person involved in the accident would never admit his fault. This Court is of opinion that such a blanket proposition cannot be approved and every driver of the vehicle involved in the accident cannot be condemned with preconceived fault. Even when applying the principles of strict liability, the victims contribution to the happening remains a relevant consideration and when the non-applicants maintained that accident was caused by the fault of the victim, the case was required to be examined on the basis of the evidence available on record and so also by applying relevant principles recognised for the purpose of arriving at a finding about the responsibility towards accident. The documentary evidence related to the accident has its own relevance and significance and the learned Judge of the Tribunal has been seriously in error in not even looking at a single document before arriving at the conclusion of negligence of the military driver. 14. A close scrutiny of the material available on record shows it clearly that the military vehicle driver Iqbal Chand is not entirely an untruthful witness. 15. 14. A close scrutiny of the material available on record shows it clearly that the military vehicle driver Iqbal Chand is not entirely an untruthful witness. 15. Iqbal Chand, NAW-1 has deposed that when he approached the main road from the Camp, he blew the horn, allowed a truck to pass who gave him dipper and thereafter, looked at both the sides and after giving the indicator and dipper of the head light and blowing the horn, he entered the road and at that time his vehicle was in first gear with a speed of about 4 kms. per hour; then he heard a loud bang on the right hand side; he stopped the vehicle and got down; took a torch from the second driver and then found a motorcycle and two persons laying flat; he checked them and then in the medical van, Doctor and Company Commander reached there. This witness has stated that when he took care of the injured persons, both were smelling liquor, one died and other one was saved. He has also stated that he asked the person as to why the light was not put-on, then it was replied that the light was not functional; he questioned on such intoxicated state for which the person pleaded regrets and then he asked the pillion rider that at least they could have looked at the light of military vehicle to which he replied that they were highly drunk, could not see the light and were attempting to catch hold of the truck going ahead and it was also divulged that the person driving the motorcycle was only learning and was having no licence. This witness has categorically stated that the motorcycle hit his vehicle between the rear wheel and silencer pipe, thus,- ^^eksVj lkbZfdy gekjh xkM+ h ds ihNs okys Oghy o lkbysalj ikbi ds chp esa VDdjkbZ FkhA** 16. This witness in his cross-examination has pointed out that there were no bushes at the place where they were entering the road; has admitted the accident to have occurred at place A in the site plan (Exhibit-6) and the vehicle having halted at place C. He has also pointed that there was a Sepoy standing at about 10-15 ft. from the place of accident when he halted the vehicle. from the place of accident when he halted the vehicle. He has admitted that the accident occurred as soon as their vehicle came on the road, then stated that his vehicle had crossed about ¾ the part when the motorcycle collided. In the words of the witness,- ^^;g ckr lgh gS fd gekjh xkM+h Mkej jksj ;g ,DlhMsaV gqvkA fQj dgk fd jksM+ ij xbZ vkSM+ ls rhu pkSFkkbZ fgLlk gekjh xkMh ikj ij pqdh Fkh fQj eksVj lkbZfdy VDdjkbZ FkhA** 17. Bubulal AW-4, the pillion rider of the motorcycle has stated that the accident occurred at about 7:30-8:00 PM and that the military vehicle came from left side of the road and hit the motorcycle; the lights of military vehicle were not on nor the driver blew the horn and came in a high speed; Chetan Ram died on the spot whereas he sustained simple injuries and on his asking the military vehicle driver gave out his name as Iqbal Chand and that he lodged the report in police station. In cross-examination, he has stated that darkness had already set in and that the lights of motorcycle were on; he had denied both of them to be drunk but has admitted that the military vehicle driver came to him after the accident; he has asserted that Chetan Ram had driving licence and that Chetan Ram was driving the motorcycle for about one year and knew about driving for three years; he has admitted that the military vehicle came to the pucca road from a kuchcha one; and that the road was single lane road of about 5-6 feet; and that even on a turn, the vehicles are run in full speed. In the words of Babulal,- h Fk+h d+ Åij xkM+h;k¡ Qqy Hkh pykrs gSA 18. In the statements of the two witnesses Iqbal Chand and Babulal as noticed above, the features on which both of them are ad-idem remain that the accident occurred in the winter month of January, 1995 at about 7:30-8:00 PM ; that darkness had already set in; that the military vehicle came from the side lane and the accident occurred at the junction of the side lane and the main road. Babulal has admitted that the main road was 5-6 feet wide and Iqbal Chand has asserted that the motorcycle hit the truck near the rear wheel and silencer pipe; and that the military vehicle had already crossed 3/4th on the road. Both have imputed on the other side that the lights of other vehicle was not switched on. 19. In the context of these statements, a look at the site plan Exhibit 6 prepared by the police shows that the motorcycle is laying at the junction point of the side lane and the main road; and the military vehicle is parked on the other side of the road facing the same direction from which came the motorcycle, after taking a right hand turn from the junction point and then crossing the entire width of road. It has been shown that at the opposite side of the point of impact, an arrow sign has been put on the side of the road showing it to be a way to "822 Camp." The report has not given exact width of the road but has shown existence of bushes and plaints on either side of the place of occurrence. 20. The significant document in this case remains the mechanical inspection report of the military vehicle (recovery truck), Exhibit 7. Every part relevant for manoeuvring of the vehicle has been shown to be in right condition and the MTO has put the following note, -..... ^^feysVªh dh xkMPps jksM ls iDdh jksM ij p<hA ogka lMd 5&6 QqV dh flaxy lMd FkhA eksM ds ^^xkM+h ds MzªkbZoj lkbZM esa fiNys Vk;j o lkbZysUlj ds ikj [kjksapsa gSaA lkbZysUlj ekewyh eqMk gqvk gS tks rktk gSA** 21. A comprehension of the site plan, the statements of witnesses and the mechanical inspection report of the military vehicle unfailingly established that the accident was a result of the negligence of both the drivers in which the motorcycle driver has contributed equally, if not largely. 22. The length of military vehicle being a recovery van would naturally be more than 15 ft. 22. The length of military vehicle being a recovery van would naturally be more than 15 ft. and looking to the width of the single track road, as stated by Babulal to be about 5-6 ft., even if the vehicle has not gone straight on the road from the side lane and has taken a turn to be diagonal to the road, it is but apparent that the military vehicle has covered a substantial width of the road before the motorcycle had an impact, because the point of impact is near the rear wheel and silencer pipe of the vehicle. Whether the military vehicle came straight on the road or whether it came diagonal to the road, in view of the distance already covered by the vehicle on the road, the motorcycle could not have hit the rear side of the vehicle unless it was coming at a very high speed and the motorcyclist omitted to spot that much of a big vehicle having already engulfed a major width of the road. The road has been shown a straighter one on either side of the junction point. There cannot be any chance of any obstruction in the vision of the motorcyclist because the bushes and the plants etc. cannot hide the military recovery van and there cannot be any chance of any disturbance to the vision for any oncoming head light because such would have been curtailed by the expanse of the military vehicle. 23. The very fact that on such a small road, the motorcyclist hit the rear of such a big military vehicle shows it clearly that the event cannot happen unless the motorcyclist omitted to take reasonable care and caution. 24. The road was not unknown to the deceased Chetan Ram as it has been categorically asserted by the claimants that the deceased was residing at village Garal and was managing the bicycle shop at Barmer and was regularly going from Garal to Barmer. The place of accident having a side lane leading to the military camp with the specific sign board put on the other side of the road cannot be believed to be unknown to the deceased. 25. The place of accident having a side lane leading to the military camp with the specific sign board put on the other side of the road cannot be believed to be unknown to the deceased. 25. The postmortem report of the deceased Exhibit-10 also shows that the deceased had a fracture of maxilla at right hand side and upper Jaw was broken apart from other abrasions and bruises and also the fracture of femur and fracture of clavicle bone and the ribs. There are no crush injuries. In the overall circumstances of the case, even if that part of the testimony of Iqbal Chand that the motorcyclists were drunk is removed out of consideration, his testimony that the vehicle has already come 3/4th on the road and then there was a bang at the rear right hand side is fully corroborated by the site plan and the mechanical inspection report. The deceased has dashed against the rear side of the military vehicle and would not have so dashed if the motorcycle was running at a moderate speed and was driven with reasonable care and caution. The present one is clearly a case where the motorcyclist has crashed into the truck and has not been hit by the truck. 26. The approach of the learned Judge of the Tribunal in condemning the military vehicle driver on the consideration that nobody admits his mistake for accident clearly falls short of the requirements of objective appreciation of the material on record. The blanket proposition stated by the learned Judge of the Tribunal has no basis and could be applied equally to both the parties involved in the collision and the requirement remains that the material on record ought to be appreciated and analysed objectively. As noticed, the learned Judge of the Tribunal has left aside the entire documentary evidence on record as if the same was of a mere formality and such an approach cannot be appreciated. 27. It may also be pointed out that the approach of the learned Judge on issue No. 3 was also not correct wherein the question was posed if the victim Chetan Ram had no licence to drive a motorcycle? The relevance of this issue has been with reference to the stand of the respondent that the deceased Chetan Ram was not conversant with motorcycle driving and hit the military vehicle for his own mistake. The relevance of this issue has been with reference to the stand of the respondent that the deceased Chetan Ram was not conversant with motorcycle driving and hit the military vehicle for his own mistake. The driving licence of the deceased Chetan Ram has not been produced on record and the challan Exhibit-1 also states that driving licences of both the drivers were yet to be obtained. No evidence having been produced on record, it cannot be readily inferred that the deceased Chetan Ram was qualified to drive and was conversant with the requirements of motorcycle driving. 28. In may, of course be pointed out that the purpose of foregoing discussion has been to show that in the occurrence in question contributory negligence of the motorcyclist is evident, but by no means it can be said that the accident ought to be taken solely as his responsibility. When the truck driver was coming from the side lane to the main road, more care and caution was required of him and he ought to have thoroughly checked for clearance of the main road before entering the same. The motorcyclist was on the main road and his running in a reasonably high speed cannot be faulted with. Secondly, according to the driver Iqbal Chand, there was a Sepoy posted near the junction point about 10-15 feet from the road. Such Sepoy has not been produced in evidence and an adverse inference is required to be drawn against the appellant for not producing such a relevant witness. When the appellant Union of India was taking its military vehicle from its base camp to civilian road, more care and caution were required to be observed by it to prevent such accidents. 29. In the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that the present one is clearly a case of contributory negligence of both the parties and both have contributed equally to the occurrence. The finding on issue No. 1 is set aside and it is held that the accident was a result of the negligence of both the drivers in which the deceased Chetan Ram contributed equally and his contributory negligence stands at 50%. QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION: 30. The finding on issue No. 1 is set aside and it is held that the accident was a result of the negligence of both the drivers in which the deceased Chetan Ram contributed equally and his contributory negligence stands at 50%. QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION: 30. Coming to the question of quantification of compensation, it is found that on this aspect also the learned Judge has proceeded squarely contrary to the evidence on record and so also to the recognised applicable principles for arriving at a figure of just compensation. The deceased Chetan Ram has been shown to be managing a bicycle shop at Barmer earning about Rs. 150/-per day but his earning has been taken as Rs. 50/-per day for absolutely inexplicable reasons; then personal expenditure has been taken at 40% with contribution of Rs. 30/-per day to the applicants, and thereafter a multiplier of 38 has been applied to arrived at a figure of Rs. 4,10,400/-. Further, for the death of a young person, his widow has been awarded Rs. 3,000/-towards loss of consortium and the children at Rs. 1,000/-each for loss of love, affection and guidance. The considerations adopted by the learned Judge on every single count remain incorrect on evidence as well as in law. The award of the present nature cannot be approved and the entire finding on issue No. 2 is set aside. In view of the fact that the accident has occurred way back in the year 1995, it is considered appropriate to proceed with quantification of the compensation payable to the claimants in this appeal itself . 2.31. The claimant Smt. Amru has stated that Chetan Ram was earning about 150/-to 200/-per day and was contributing about Rs. 3,000/-per month to the family. AW-2, Karan Singh has stated that Chetan Ram was a tenant in his shop at Barmer at a rent of Rs. 2.50/-per month and was earning about Rs. 100/-to 150/-per day. Ganga Ram, uncle of the deceased has stated this income at Rs. 150/ - per day and Babulal has also stated the income of deceased Chetan Ram at Rs. 150/-per day. Looking to the fact that the deceased was managing a bicycle shop and was paying rent of Rs. 250/-per month to his shops landlord, from the overall evidence on record, it is reasonable to infer that the deceased was earning about Rs. 120/-per day i.e. about Rs. 150/-per day. Looking to the fact that the deceased was managing a bicycle shop and was paying rent of Rs. 250/-per month to his shops landlord, from the overall evidence on record, it is reasonable to infer that the deceased was earning about Rs. 120/-per day i.e. about Rs. 3,600/-per month from which an expenditure of Rs. 1,000/- per month for the business in the shape of rent, electricity, water, conveyance charges, helping staff etc. is required to be provided for, which would lead to a likely net income of Rs. 2,600/-per month. 32. In view of the age of 27 years of the deceased, a reasonable provision for future prospects deserves to be made. As the deceased was not in a settled job and was self -employed, providing for future prospects and so also uncertainties, it is considered reasonable to take an average income 1.5 times the last shown income of Rs. 2,600/-per month, which comes to Rs. 3,900/-per month and deducting 1/3rd for the personal expenditure of the deceased, an average figure of the dependency of Rs. 2,600/-per month could be taken leading to Rs. 31,200/-per annum for the purpose of multiplicand. 33. The multiplicand of Rs. 31,200/-deserves to be capitalized by higher