Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This appeal filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for brevity the Act) by the claimant-appellants prays for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Chandigarh (for brevity MACT) vide its award dated 13.11.1987. The claimants are the widow and the three sons of deceased limed Singh who was killed in a road accident which occurred on 1.9.1986 at the Poultry Farm Chowk on Chandigarh Ambala Road at 10.30 P.M. The total amount of compensation claimed is Rs. 3 lacs. However the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 57600/- by apportioning the same amongst the claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 1.9.1986 Umed Singh was riding a bicycle. When he reached the Poultry Farm Chowk Chandigarh Ambala Road he had crossed almost the whole crossing. Then a bus bearing registration No.HRT-5332 belonging to the Haryana Roadways driven by Rajinder Singh-respondent No. 2 was going from Chandigarh to Ambala which hit the rear portion of the bicycle of the deceased when he had almost crossed the road from Industrial Area side towards Hallo Majra. He suffered head injuries and later on died in the hospital. The deceased was identified as Umed Singh who was also serving as bus driver with the respondent - Haryana Roadways and it is stated that he was drawing a gross salary of Rs. 1425.80 per month. His age was stated to be 48 years. It has come on record that the manner of accident was promptly reported to the police which registered F.l.R. No. 368 of 1986 on the statement made by one Surinder Kumar on 1.9.1986 at 1.45 P.M. The F.l.R. has been produced on record as Exhibit P-10 and the same has been recorded on the basis of ocular version of Surinder Kumar who was later on examined as PW5. 3. The stand of the respondent-State is that the accident had taken place due to the fault of Umed Singh the cyclist who is stated to have lost control of his bicycle and fell on the right-side of the road in front of the bus. It has been asserted that the bus struck against the rear portion of the bicycle and the victim was immediately taken to the PGI by the driver and conductor of the bus. It has also been alleged that the victim was smelling of liquor. It has been asserted that the bus struck against the rear portion of the bicycle and the victim was immediately taken to the PGI by the driver and conductor of the bus. It has also been alleged that the victim was smelling of liquor. The driver of the vehicle Rajinder Singh-respondent No. 2 did not appear before the Tribunal despite service and was proceeded ex parte on 9.5.1987. 4. The Tribunal has accepted the version of the claimant-appellants and has appreciated the prompt lodging of F.I.R. which unfold the ocular version. The Tribunal has also criticised the non appearance of Rajinder Singh-respondent No. 2 the driver of the offending vehicle who has not given any contrary version of the accident. Accordingly the Tribunal has reached the conclusion that Umed Singh-deceased was required to take precaution and he has contributed to the accident. In that regard it has recorded the following finding: No doubt the deceased was required to take precaution of the traffic coming from his right hand side while entering the intersection of roads but all the same it appears to be case of misjudgment on his part as he had crossed almost the entire road when the right from portion of the bus hit against the rear portion of the bicycle. This conclusion is fortified from the depiction of the place of the occurrence in the rough site plan Ex. P 1 of the spot prepared by ASI Nirmal Singh at 11.20 P.M. And the photographs of the spot Ex. P 2 to Ex. P 8 taken by Head Constable Nafe Singh on the same night because in the rough site plan the place of occurrence is depicted near the middle divider of the road while photographs depict the bicycle lying just close to the middle divider of two way carriage road. The hind rim of the bicycle is twisted which also shows that the bus had hit the hind portion of the bicycle. It appears that the accident took place due to the equal contributory negligence on the part of Umed Singh deceased as well as Rajinder Singh respondent No. 2 in driving the bus because Rajinder Singh was also expected to slow down his bus near the intersection of roads to make allowance for any traffic entering the chowk. It appears that the accident took place due to the equal contributory negligence on the part of Umed Singh deceased as well as Rajinder Singh respondent No. 2 in driving the bus because Rajinder Singh was also expected to slow down his bus near the intersection of roads to make allowance for any traffic entering the chowk. The fact that the bus stopped at a distance of 20-25 yards from the place of accident further shows that it was being driven at a high speed as he could not drive the bus beyond a limit of 40 kilometers per hour in the urban limits of Chandigarh town. After concluding that deceased Umed Singh was guilty of equal contributory negligence the Tribunal proceeded to determine the quantum of compensation. The carry home salary of the deceased was worked out to be Rs. 1225.80 after making deduction from GPF Fund. A total loss to his dependants was found to be Rs. 800/- per month and the annual loss was Rs. 9600/-. Accordingly a multiplier of 12 was applied by taking the age of the deceased 48 on the statement made by his wife that she was 47 years old. It has also come on record in the post-mortem report that the deceased was about 40 years. The view of the Tribunal in that regard is discernible from para 9 of the award as under: Regarding the quantum of compensation it....Thus total per month loss to his dependents would work out to Rs. 800/- and the annual loss Rs. 9600/-. The deceased must be about 50 years old as his wife has given her age as 47 years but there is no specific evidence in this regard. Thus but for his accident he would have continued his service until attaining the age of superannuation with the Haryana Roadways. After retirement he would have continued working as driver with some private transporter at least uptil the age of 62 years. Thus the multiplier of 12 to fifty percent of the annual loss would determine the just compensation to the petitioners on account of death of Umed Singh. The annual loss would work out to Rs. 4800/- and the total loss would work out to Rs. 57600/- out of which the petitioners have already received Rs. 15000/- from the respondent No. 1 under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. The annual loss would work out to Rs. 4800/- and the total loss would work out to Rs. 57600/- out of which the petitioners have already received Rs. 15000/- from the respondent No. 1 under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. They are entitled to receive another Rs. 42600/- but to make it round figure it is reduced to Rs. 42000/-. Out of this compensation Shrimati Chander Devi shall receive Rs. 12000/- as she had already received Rs. 10000/- out of compensation awarded under Section 92-A of the said Act. Ram Niwas petitioner is about 15 years old. Considering his long dependency he shall get compensation of Rs. 15000/- from this amount and the remaining amount of Rs. 15000/- shall be shared equally by Satbir Singh and Satpal groan up sons of the deceased. The amount falling to the share of the minor shall be deposited in some scheduled bank for a period of three years with the direction that its accruing interest shall be paid to the month of the minor every month. The petitioners shall also be entitled 12% per annum interest from the date of filing of this petition till realisation besides proportionate costs. Counsel fee is assessed at Rs. 200/-. 5. During the pendency of the appeal the claimant have filed an application to place of record various notifications to show the revised pay scales of the post of driver w.e.f. 1.1.1996. 6. Mr. Ashwani Arora learned Counsel for the appellant-claimants has argued that no negligence on the part of the deceased could be inferred if the site plan Exhibit P-1 and the ocular version as disclosed in the F.I.R. are kept in view. According to the learned Counsel the deceased had almost crossed the road inter-section. In such a situation it is the duty of the driver entering the intersection to take precaution and ensure that he could pass through it safely without causing any harm to anyone. In that regard he has placed reliance on regulation 6 and 7 of the 10th Schedule appended to the Act. The aforementioned regulations were the subject matter of consideration of the Division Bench of this in M/s Sachdeva Rice Mills and Ors. v. Smt. Raj Anand and Ors. (2002-3) 132 P.L.R. (P&H) 23. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on para 26 of the aforementioned judgment. The aforementioned regulations were the subject matter of consideration of the Division Bench of this in M/s Sachdeva Rice Mills and Ors. v. Smt. Raj Anand and Ors. (2002-3) 132 P.L.R. (P&H) 23. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on para 26 of the aforementioned judgment. Therefore he has submitted that no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased could be attributed and 50% cut imposed by the Tribunal is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 7. Learned Counsel has then argued that the wife of the deceased has deposed with regard to her age to be 47 as is evident from the reading of para 9 of the award. He has also referred to the post mortem report where the age of the deceased is described to be 40 years approximately. According to the learned Counsel the Tribunal has presumed the age of the deceased to be 50 years. Placing reliance upon the Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 he has argued that for a person above 45 years but not 50 years multiplier of 13 is required to be applied whereas the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 12. 8. Mr. Arora has also argued that the deduction of G.P. Fund by the MACT is unwarranted because gross salary including the allowance is required to be the basis for calculating the dependency. In that regard he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon ble the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan (2002-3) 132 P.L.R. 281(S.C). 9. Learned Counsel has lastly submitted that the future prospects of enhancing the salary of the deceased Umed Singh are also required to be kept in view. In that a regard a reference has been made to the Notification appended with the Civil Misc. No. 13987-CII of 2006. The Schedule to the Haryana Transport Department (Group C) Haryana Roadways Service Rules as appended with the application would show that Heavy Vehicle driver in the year 1986 used to draw salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 + 50/-Special Pay Entry No. 9 in the Schedule under Sub head of Operational Staff is the relevant entry in that regard. Mr. 1200-2040 + 50/-Special Pay Entry No. 9 in the Schedule under Sub head of Operational Staff is the relevant entry in that regard. Mr. Arora learned Counsel has also referred to Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 1998 which were enforced w.e.f. 1.1.1996 Schedule 1 para II of these Rules would show that the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 was revised to Rs. 5450-8000. Learned Counsel has contended that if the future prospects of increase of salary are kept in view the quantum of compensation is bound to go up. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Dixit and Anr. v. Balwant Yadav and Ors. (1996-2) 113 P.L.R. 656 (S.C.). 10. Mr. Harish Rathee learned State counsel has submitted that the findings recorded by the MACT cannot be regarded as erroneous as the deceased cyclist was required to take care while using the road. He has also submitted that the multiplier of 13 could not be applied as there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was 50 years or less than 50 years of age. He has also controverted the argument that there were future prospects for the deceased Umed Singh to further enhance his salary because he may not have remain in service up to 1.1.1996 as on the date of occurrence of accident i.e. 1.9.1986 he would be 50 years of age. Accordingly he would have retired after about 8 years and would not have reached upto 1.1.1996. 11. I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and am of the view that this appeal deserves to be accepted. Regulations 6 and 7 as appeared in the 10th Schedule of the Act would show that a duty is cast on the driver of a motor vehicle to slow down when he is approaching a road inter section. He is not to enter any such inter-section until he has become aware that he may do so without endangering the safety of persons using the road. The aforementioned Regulations read as under: 6. The driver of the motor vehicle shall slow down when approaching a road intersection a road junction or a road corner and shall not enter any such intersection or junction until he has become aware that he may do so without endangering the safety of persons thereon. 7. The aforementioned Regulations read as under: 6. The driver of the motor vehicle shall slow down when approaching a road intersection a road junction or a road corner and shall not enter any such intersection or junction until he has become aware that he may do so without endangering the safety of persons thereon. 7. The driver of a motor vehicle shall on entering a road intersection if the road entered is a main road designated as such give way to the vehicles proceeding along that road and in any other case give way to all traffic approaching the intersection on his right hand. 12. A reading of the Regulations quoted above shows that the driver of a motor vehicle must slow down his vehicle when approaching a road junction and also to give way to the vehicle approaching the inter-section on his right side. The aforementioned provisions came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Sachdeva Rice Mills (Supra) and in para 16 of the judgment it has been observed as under: 16. The argument that the driver of the bus failed in both of his obligations namely to drive the bus on the right side of the truck and also to slow down before entering on the crossing has been substantiated because the truck has been damaged on its middle left side which would indicate that the bus driver was not driving on the right side of the truck. It is further clear that the speed of the bus was so high that it took U turn facing the road from which it had come. It also threw away the truck into the ditches of the side road.... 13. If the facts of the present case are examined in the light of the principles laid down in the Regulations as interpreted in M/s Sachdeva Rice Mills case (supra) it becomes evident that the deceased cyclist Umed Singh had almost crossed the whole intersection of the road when the offending bus has hit by rear side of his bicycle which proved fatal. A glance at the site plan (Ex.P-1) makes the scene of accident absolutely crystal clear. A glance at the site plan (Ex.P-1) makes the scene of accident absolutely crystal clear. The statement of the author of the F.I.R. further support the same version which he has given in the F.I.R. It also substantially supports the view that the deceased cyclist had crossed the road inter-section substantially. Had the cyclist not taken care he would not have crossed the inter-section substantially and moreover it was enjoined upon the driver of the offending bus to slow down his vehicle when he was approaching a road inter-section. The deceased Umed Singh could not be considered to have contributed to the accident. Therefore the findings of the MACT that he has equally contributed in the accident are hereby reversed. 14. 1 am further of the view that by no stretch of imagination the age of the deceased could be considered to be more than 50 years and therefore the multiplier of 13 as provided by the Schedule appended to the Act should have been applied. 1 am also in agreement with the argument raised by Mr. Arora that the future prospects of enhancing the salary of deceased cyclist were also required to be kept in view. He was working as a driver in the Haryana Roadways at a gross salary of Rs. 1425/-. The salary of Rs. 1425/- as a whole has to be taken into account for working out the compensation. In Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav (1996-2) 113 P.L.R. 656 (S.C.) it has been held that the projection of future prospects can be reflected by calculating the gross income at the time of death and then to increase the same by double the amount. The average of both the figures would represent approximate loss of income. In the present case the gross salary of the deceased driver was Rs. 1425/-. If we look at the revised pay scale on 1.1.1996 then his salary would have gone up almost three times. However he would not have continued in service up to 1.1.1996 and therefore it would be fair to double the salary to Rs. 2850/- The total of both figures comes to Rs. 4275/- and to round it off it will come to Rs. 4300/-. The average of the total comes to Rs. 2150/-. The annual dependency of l/3rd comes to Rs. 716/- which is rounded to Rs. 725/-. 2850/- The total of both figures comes to Rs. 4275/- and to round it off it will come to Rs. 4300/-. The average of the total comes to Rs. 2150/-. The annual dependency of l/3rd comes to Rs. 716/- which is rounded to Rs. 725/-. Therefore the annual dependency would work out to be Rs. 17100/- (Rs. 1425/- x 12 = Rs. 17100/-. A multiplier of 13 which is required to be applied would bring the figure of Rs. 222300/-. It may be mentioned here that I have taken the gross salary without deducting the allowances like GPF as has been laid down by Hon ble the Supreme Court in Patricia Jean Mahajan (supra). 15. In view of above the award passed by the MACT is modified by enhancing the same to Rs. 222300/-. A sum of Rs. 15000/- which the claimant-appellants have already received or any other amount already paid to them shall be deducted. I maintain the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of its realization because the accident had occurred on 1.9.1986 and the rate of interest prevailing at that time has been rightly awarded by the MACT. 16. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.