BHAWANI SINGH, CJ. ( 1 ) AWARD of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara, in MACT No. 1543 of 1991 dated April 30, 1996, is challenged through this Appeal by the claimants. ( 2 ) WHETHER reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes Accident took place on July 9, 1991, at 9:45 a. m. opposite Bank of India near Race-Course Circle. Shri Anilkumar Anantrao Ambalgekar (deceased) was going on motorcycle No. GJ-6-B-9618 with pillion rider Shri Pravinkumar Gupta. Motorcycle was being driven at a moderate speed. Crane No. MRX-3747 came with full speed in a rash and negligent manner and crushed the deceased under front wheel, dragged upto 17 feet resulting in serious injuries on account of which, he died. Deceased was intelligent from childhood. He got first class in secondary school. He passed B. Sc. examination in First Class. He got distinction in M. B. A. . He joined State Bank of India as Probation Officer. His salary was Rs. 6300/- per month and other benefits Rs. 3000 per month with furnished house at a monthly rent of Rs. 135/-, which otherwise could cost Rs. 3000-3500 per month to other persons. He was 29 year old, therefore, could live for long and earn Rs. 20000/- per month. He was bread winner of the family. ( 3 ) ORIENTAL Insurance Company Limited filed Written Statement (Ex. 23), averments as to age, income, accident, injuries and compensation are not admitted. It is stated that on the day of accident, driver was taking crane on the correct side of the road. When he reached near the Bank of India, a three wheeler tempo overtook the crane and went ahead. Since on the road, pipeline work was completed, there were trenches filled up. The three wheeler tempo driver applied brakes and at that time, deceased, who was driving the motorcycle with pillion rider, overtook the crane with full speed rashly and negligently. As tempo driver had applied brakes, deceased could not control his motorcycle, it dashed with the tempo. As a result, both the occupants fell on the road. Deceased fell near the wheels of crane and the accident took place. Since the crane is a slow moving vehicle, accident was the result of rash and negligent driving by the deceased. As tempo driver had applied brakes, deceased could not control his motorcycle, it dashed with the tempo. As a result, both the occupants fell on the road. Deceased fell near the wheels of crane and the accident took place. Since the crane is a slow moving vehicle, accident was the result of rash and negligent driving by the deceased. ( 4 ) ON the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed: (1) Whether the applicants prove that deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of Crane No. MRX-3747 by opponent No. 1 and there was not contributory negligency on the party of the deceased? (2) If so, applicants further prove that they are entitled to recover Rs. 30. 00 lacs or any part thereof from the opponents or any of them? (3) What order? The Claims Tribunal holds that there was 40% contributory negligence of three wheeler temp, 40% contributory negligence of the deceased-motorcyclist and 20% of crane driver. Consequently, compensation of Rs. 2,61,852/- from the opponents, jointly and severally, with interest at the rate of 12% p. a. from the date of application till its realization, has been awarded. ( 5 ) CLAIMANTS are aggrieved by this judgment, therefore, they submit that finding of Tribunal with regard to negligence is contrary to the documentary and oral evidence. Accident was caused due to the sole negligence of the crane driver, who admitted that he was unaware about the occurrence on the road, thereby clearly showing that he was negligent. He ought not have driven the crane on the road in a manner jeopardising the life of other users of the road. ( 6 ) PRAVINKUMAR Gupta (Ex. 40), traveling with the deceased, clearly stated that crane driver did not apply brakes and crushed the deceased who had fallen on the road, demonstrating negligence of crane driver. Finding of negligence is contrary to evidence, therefore, liable to be quashed. Further submission is that reduction of 40% of Award amount from the deceased though pertains to tempo drivers negligence, is untenable. The Tribunal committed serious error in calculating the compensation, therefore, award is liable to be modified and compensation enhanced to the extent prayed. ( 7 ) THESE submissions are opposed by the respondents. Submissions are for maintaining the Award passed by the Tribunal. Further, it is submitted that the deceased was solely responsible for the accident. The Tribunal committed serious error in calculating the compensation, therefore, award is liable to be modified and compensation enhanced to the extent prayed. ( 7 ) THESE submissions are opposed by the respondents. Submissions are for maintaining the Award passed by the Tribunal. Further, it is submitted that the deceased was solely responsible for the accident. He drove the motorcycle rashly and negligently without following the rules of road. Crane is a slow moving vehicle. It is not responsible for the accident and holding it negligent to the extent of 20% is contrary to evidence. Shri R. R. Marshall, learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, made reference to Cross Objections by the Company. However, it is found that Cross Objections stood dismissed on 19. 7. 2001. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for both the sides were heard extensively, record perused. First thing for consideration is how the accident took place and who is responsible for the same. Opponents-1 and 2 did not file Written Statement. Opponent-3 (Insurance Company) filed Written Statement (Ex. 23) denying allegations against the crane driver. Defence is that when the crane driver reached near Bank of India, Race Course Circle, a three wheeler tempo overtook the crane. Thereafter, he applied brakes due to obstruction on the road. ( 9 ) DECEASED, who had overtaken the crane soon after the three wheeler tempo with full speed and stuck against the tempo, fell near front right wheel of crane, was crushed. The deceased was himself negligent. Crane driver Babubhai (Ex. 51) is produced by the Insurance Company. He states that he found someone dragged with the crane. He saw that one person had crushed below the crane which is left hand driven while the accident took place on the right side, therefore, could not know the happening. He states that accident took place on straight road. He admits that police filed chargesheet against him. First Information Report (Ex. 27) is lodged by Pravinkumar Gupta. He is the eye-witness to the occurrence while Jayanti, widow of deceased, is not. According to this witness, deceased had overtaken the crane by his motorcycle and dashed with the three wheeler tempo, both of them fell on the road on either side of tempo. Wheel of the crane ran over the deceased. Suggestion that motorcycle was dragged upto 17 feet by the crane is not admitted by crane driver. According to this witness, deceased had overtaken the crane by his motorcycle and dashed with the three wheeler tempo, both of them fell on the road on either side of tempo. Wheel of the crane ran over the deceased. Suggestion that motorcycle was dragged upto 17 feet by the crane is not admitted by crane driver. Apart from the statement of eye-witness Pravinkumar, First Information Report and panchnama throw sufficient light how accident took place and who can be held to be responsible for the same. For facility of reference and proper appreciation of the issue, following sketch is drawn form the Panchnama. ( 10 ) FROM perusal of the Panchnama and sketch recorded above, it is crystal clear that crane driver was not driving the vehicle properly on the left side of the road. It was being driven towards the right side of road leaving 14 feet road from the front and 8 feet road from the rear to the left side of Pucca road and leaving 5 feet road from front and 8 feet road from the rear towards right side. The motorcycle is crushed under the right front tyre of the crane leaving distance of only four feet to the right. Had the driver of crane, driven the crane strictly on the left, enough space could have remained to the right for other vehicles to pass conveniently. Apart from Pucca road, Crane driver had another 15 feet Kutchha portion on the left. This is indication of clear negligence on his part. It is a general statement that crane is a slow moving vehicle, but actually, it cannot be accepted when one looks realistically and appreciates the situation. Three wheeler tempo had overtaken the crane. Obviously, after finding safe distance, between the crane and the tempo, the deceased overtook the crane. Had there been no distance or no safe distance between the tempo and the crane, the deceased would not have overtaken the crane. Having overtaken the crane successfully, he was obstructed by application of brakes by three wheeler tempo with which the motorcycle stuck and the occupants fell on the road. Crane driver admits that it was a straight road. Straight he could see conveniently, so he should have seen that deceased had dashed with the three wheeler, therefore, had fallen down along with other occupant. Crane driver admits that it was a straight road. Straight he could see conveniently, so he should have seen that deceased had dashed with the three wheeler, therefore, had fallen down along with other occupant. Had the crane driver been vigilant, he could have seen this occurrence between the three wheeler and the motorcycle and stopped crane immediately. He did not see, means, he was not watchful while driving the crane. Further, he was rash and drove with same speed to the point where deceased had fallen and crushed him and dragged the motorcycle to a distance of 17 feet. This shows unreasonable speed, rash and negligent driving by the crane driver, further aggravated by non application of brakes. ( 11 ) CONTENTION that he could not see to the right since the vehicle is left handed, cant be accepted as the motorcycle had hit the three wheeler earlier in front of the crane driver and he could see it. Therefore, there is no manner of doubt that crane driver contributed to the extent of 40%. Deceased should have been careful in driving the motorcycle. He was in hurry to reach the office. Without seeking indication from the crane driver to overtake, he moved acrobatically and hit the three wheeler, the driver of which had applied brakes due to obstruction on the road. But, there is no contributory negligence on the part of three wheeler tempo driver since he was moving on the road and could apply brakes when faced with obstruction, therefore, finding against him by the Claims Tribunal is not justified. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that deceased was negligent in driving the motorcycle to the extent of 60%. ( 12 ) HAVING come to the aforesaid conclusion, next question pertains to assessment of compensation. Claims Tribunal has committed serious error in calculating the compensation. Therefore, it has to be assessed afresh. The deceased was 29 year old. He was a Probation Officer in the Bank drawing Rs. 6231. 06 per month salary and Rs. 3000/- other allowances per month, total Rs. 9231/- per month. Calculating on the principles laid down in Smt. Sarla Dixit and another v. Balwant Yadav and others ( AIR 1996 SC 1274 ), the compensation can be computed as under:rs. 9231 + Rs. 9231 = Rs. 18462 + Rs. 6231. 06 per month salary and Rs. 3000/- other allowances per month, total Rs. 9231/- per month. Calculating on the principles laid down in Smt. Sarla Dixit and another v. Balwant Yadav and others ( AIR 1996 SC 1274 ), the compensation can be computed as under:rs. 9231 + Rs. 9231 = Rs. 18462 + Rs. 9231 = Rs. 27693 x 1/2 = Rs. 13846 - 1/3rd (personal expenses) = Rs. 9231 x 12 = Rs. 110772/- x 18 = Rs. 1993896 + Rs. 20000 (expectancy of life) + Rs. 5000 (consortium) + Rs. 3000 (funeral expenses) = Rs. 2021896 60% negligence of deceased = Rs. 808758 Rs. 261852 (awarded amount) = Rs. 546906/ -. ( 13 ) THUS, enhanced compensation works out to Rs. 546906/ -. This amount of compensation shall be payable with interest at the rate of 12% p. a. from the date of application till payment. The Appeal is allowed, Award is modified to the aforesaid extent. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited will deposit the amount of compensation within two months from today with the Claims Tribunal, whereafter, it shall be disbursed to the claimants on proper verification, as under: Sr. No. Name of Claimantrelationship with deceasedpercentage of Compensation1jayanti, widow of Anilkumar Anantraowife30. 00% 2minor Tanya Daughter30. 00% 3dr. Anandrao Manekrao Ambalgekarfather20. 00% 4smt. Dr. Vinodini Anantrao Ambalgekarmother20. 00% ( 14 ) SHARE of minor Tanya be invested in FDR with a Nationalized Bank till she attains majority. Parties are left to bear their own costs in this Appeal. .