Judgment Arvind Kumar, J. 1. This judgment of mine shall dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 709 and 708 of 1987 as common question of law and facts is involved therein, having arisen out of same accident. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 30.1.1986, Babu Ram (since deceased), working as Driver with Haryana Roadways, Delhi Depot, was driving bus bearing registration No. HRC-7710 from Alwar to Delhi. At about 9.45 AM when he reached near Ghasola Chowk on Alwar-Delhi road, he noticed a truck going ahead of him and proceeding towards Gurgaon. Babu Ram switched on the head lights of his bus and gave horn in order to indicate to the truck driver his intention to overtake the truck. While he was in the process of overtaking the truck, another truck bearing registration No. RSA-6083 being driven by Daljit Singh came from the opposite side at a high speed and in a zig-zag manner and struck against the bus, as a result of which Babu Ram, driver of the bus, died at the spot and injuries caused to the passengers of the bus. The driver of the truck too sustained injuries. 3. As a result of the above accident, three claim petitions came to be filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon; namely, claim petition No. 25 of 1986 by Smt. Mahendri, widow of deceased Babu Ram, their seven children, besides the deceaseds father, claiming compensation on account of death of Babu Ram, deceased; claim petition No. 27 of 1986 by Sampat Ram, a passenger in the bus driven by Babu Ram, deceased, for grant of compensation for having lost his left leg which he attributed to the rash and negligent driving of truck by Daljit Singh; and third claim petition, namely, 52 of 1986 by Daljit Singh, driver of truck, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. 4. The claim petitions were resisted by the respondents. Respondent, Haryana Roadways, Delhi Depot, in its written statement took up the stand that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. RSA-6083 so driven by Daljit Singh. On the other hand, the driver of truck has pleaded that the accident took place due to negligence of driver of Haryana Roadways bus. Respondent, Haryana Roadways, Delhi Depot, in its written statement took up the stand that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. RSA-6083 so driven by Daljit Singh. On the other hand, the driver of truck has pleaded that the accident took place due to negligence of driver of Haryana Roadways bus. Respondent-insurance company with whom tuck No. RSA-6084 was insured took the objection that it was the driver of the bus who was responsible for causing the accident. It also took the plea that the driver of the afore-said truck did not possess a valid driving licence. 5. Since the three claim petitions related to one accident, the same were consolidated under the orders of the Tribunal and tried together. 6. The claimants examined PW-1 Dr. Jai Bhagvvan, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Gurgaon, who proved on record copy of MLR, Exhibit PA. Dr. Akhlakh Ahmed, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Gurgaon, appeared as PW-2 and stated in regard to disability suffered by claimant Sampat Ram. Dr. D. Parashar, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Gurgaon, who conducted post-mortem examination of deceased Babu Ram, appeared as PW-3. Om Parkash Clerk, Haryana Roadways, Delhi, gave statement as PW-4 and stated regarding salary which the deceased used to get. R.K. Goel, Pension Pay Master, Gurgaon, appeared as PW-5 and produced in Court the pension record of deceased Babu Ram, being an exserviceman. Claimant, Mahendri Devi, herself appeared as PW-6. Singh Ram appeared as PW-7 and stated in regard to overtime work being done by Sampat Ram. Jagdish Chand, conductor of the bus. appeared as PW-8 and narrated the manner in which the accident took place. Sampat Ram, injured, gave his statement as PW-9. The driver of the truck, namely, Daljit Singh, appeared as PW-10. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of claimants was closed. 7. Insurance Company tendered into evidence the insurance policy as Exhibit R-1. 8. The Tribunal on appreciation of the deposition made by the PWs, held that the accident took place due to contributory negligence of deceased Babu Ram i.e. driver of bus and truck driver Daljit Singh, apportioned 50:50 accordingly. 9. On consideration of evidence brought on record, the learned Tribunal allowed all the three petitions in the following manner: 10. In claim petition No. 25 of 1986 filed by the dependents of deceased Babu Ram, the learned Tribunal, determined the compensation at Rs. 9. On consideration of evidence brought on record, the learned Tribunal allowed all the three petitions in the following manner: 10. In claim petition No. 25 of 1986 filed by the dependents of deceased Babu Ram, the learned Tribunal, determined the compensation at Rs. 1,3,000/- but since it found deceased Babu Ram negligent to the extent of 50 per cent in causing the accident, it reduced the amount of compensation to Rs. 67,200/-. 11. As regards claim petition No. 27 of 1986 preferred by Sampat Ram, who was travelling in the ill-fated bus and lost his left leg, the Tribunal after taking his permanent disability to the extent of 85 per cent awarded him a sum of Rs. 71,000/- as compensation. 12. As regards claim petition No. 52 of 1986 preferred by Daljit Singh, driver of the truck on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- but reduced it to Rs. 1,500/- as he was found to be equally negligent in causing the accident. 13. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the claimants, i.e. the dependents of Babu Ram deceased and Sampat Ram have preferred the present appeals. 14. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 15. Counsel for the appellants has referred to the statement of PW-8 Jagdish Chand, conductor of the bus, who stated that before overtaking the driver of their bus had given head-lights and also blown horn, and also the statement of PW-9 Sampat Ram who stated that the accident was due to negligence of the driver of the truck which was being driven at a high speed, to argue that the negligence was of the driver of the truck and. the deceased was not at all negligent and that the Tribunal has erred in holding negligence to the extent of 50 per cent. The argument does not convince this Court. PW-8 Jagdish Chand has admitted in cross-examination that he had noticed truck for the first time when it struck against their bus and in that situation, he was certainly not in a position to know if prior thereto Babu Ram, driver of the bus, had given any horn or signal by way of head lights. PW-8 Jagdish Chand has admitted in cross-examination that he had noticed truck for the first time when it struck against their bus and in that situation, he was certainly not in a position to know if prior thereto Babu Ram, driver of the bus, had given any horn or signal by way of head lights. Similarly, PW-9 Sampat Ram, was sitting on the last seat of the bus near its rear door and admittedly, there was a mist on that day, and thus, he also would not know if the deceased Babu Ram took precaution before over-taking the ongoing truck. No doubt, a case has been registered against Daljit Singh, driver of the truck, but the Tribunal cannot draw any inference from the contents of the FIR to foist liability. The Tribunal has to give decision on the strength of the evidence led in the case. The drivers when attempting to overtake vehicles going ahead of them, should wait for proper opportunity care and caution by looking ahead and behind in order to ascertain that it would be safe for them to overtake such vehicle and are also required to give a proper signal to the ongoing vehicle regarding their intention to overtake and then to wait for reply signal indicating that the road is clear and there is no danger in overtaking. Babu Ram, driver of the bus, thus, while overtaking the truck was supposed to ensure that his overtaking would not be a source of danger to the other traffic coming from the opposite direction. He should not have overtaken the ongoing vehicle when he had noticed a truck coming from the opposite direction. Babu Ram did not at all exercise any caution while overtaking the ongoing truck. Equal responsibility was cast upon Daljit Singh, driver of the truck, to take an appropriate action on noticing the Haryana Roadways bus coming at a fast speed from the opposite direction. Daljit Singh if had swerved the truck on the kacha side on the extreme left side of the road, the mishap could have been averted. He has however not stated anything if any steps had been taken in that respect and as such, it can easily be concluded that he was equally responsible for the accident in question. The Tribunal had rightly apportioned liability at 50:50 and therefore, no interference is called for. 16. He has however not stated anything if any steps had been taken in that respect and as such, it can easily be concluded that he was equally responsible for the accident in question. The Tribunal had rightly apportioned liability at 50:50 and therefore, no interference is called for. 16. Deceased Babu Ram was driver in Haryana Roadways. His salary was Rs. 990.50P as per salary certificate proved by PW-4 Om Parkash Clerk. As per his testimony, the deceased was getting over-time allowance ranging from Rs. 78.75P to Rs. 490.60P, T.A. Allowance ranging between Rs. 102.85P to Rs. 117.95P, besides Rs. 917/- as annual bonus. The learned Tribunal after taking average of the said allowances, rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1325/- The normal rule is 1/3rd deduction on account of personal maintenance and up-keep. However, the Tribunal has deducted Rs. 625/-, to say, monthly dependency at Rs. 700/-. The Tribunal has not given any reasons from the departure of the said rule of deduction of 1/3rd amount. The deceased left behind a large family and rather more money is required for their maintenance than for his personal maintenance and up-keep. The learned Tribunal has erred in this respect. A sum of Rs. 425/- is considered appropriate for being deducted on account of personal expenses and up-keep and in this way, the monthly dependency would come to Rs. 900/-. Since the deceased was aged 40 years and had a large family to support, an appropriate multiplier is 16. Accordingly, the compensation, on computation, comes to Rs. 1,72,800/- (900 x 12 x 16). Since 50 per cent has to be deducted on account of negligence of Babu Ram himself, the amount of compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs. 86,400/-, i.e. Rs. 19,200/- over and above the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation of Rs. 19,200/- would be shared by the appellants equally, to be paid to them in cash, including the minor appellants in case they have attained majority. 17. Sampat Ram had three injuries on his person including left leg for which x-ray and surgical opinion were sought. He remained admitted in General Hospital, Gurgaon, from 30.1.1986 to 5.2.1986. As evident from the statement of PW-2, Dr. Akhtakh Ahmed, he had to suffer amputation from the Military Hospital, Delhi. 17. Sampat Ram had three injuries on his person including left leg for which x-ray and surgical opinion were sought. He remained admitted in General Hospital, Gurgaon, from 30.1.1986 to 5.2.1986. As evident from the statement of PW-2, Dr. Akhtakh Ahmed, he had to suffer amputation from the Military Hospital, Delhi. PW-2 proved the report, Ex.PB/2, stating that on account of amputation of the left lower limb through mid thing, disability was assessed to the extent of 85 per cent. Counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount for permanent disability. On the contrary, counsel for the insurance company has pointed out that Rs. 25,000/- for permanent disablement in the year 1987 was adequate as per value of money and norms prevalent at that time. The argument has been scanned. Appellant has been awarded compensation under the different headings, namely, pain and suffering, enjoyment of life, loss of income and medical expenses etc. which is appropriate. In my view, the award of Rs. 25,000/- under the heading of permanent disability is on the lower side. The appellant had to face amputation of left lower limb, through mid thigh, so much so disability is to the extent of 85 per cent though it is of limb only. Therefore, keeping in view the averments of the insurance company, to my mind, an amount of Rs. 40,000/- would be just and reasonable amount to be awarded under this head. It is ordered accordingly. The total compensation payable, thus, stands enhanced to Rs. 86,000/- i.e. Rs. 15,000/- over and above the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. 18. Coming to the rate of interest, previously it used to be 12 per cent, however, in the recent years the bank rates have been considerably reduced and the rate of interest is being awarded at the rate of 7-1/2 per cent in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited v. S. Rajapriaya and Ors. Therefore, in that back-drop of the situation, the enhanced compensation in both cases shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its payment. 19. In view of the above, the impugned award stands modified in the manner indicated above. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.