Judgment Manak Mohta, J.-The instant appeal has been preferred by the claimant appellants against the Judgment and award dated 04.03.1997 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in Claim Case No. 254/195 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 75,000/-(inclusive of Rs. 50,000/-as interim award) as compensation in favour of appellant-claimants and against the respondents. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 25.04.1995 Govind Lal (deceased) was going from Hamirgarh to Bhilwara on his Scooter No. RSI-1674. While he was near the Chungi Naka, Truck No. GJ-07X-164, which was being driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent way, came from wrong side and hit Govind Lal as well as his scooter, as a result of which Govind Lal died while under treatment. It was stated that due to untimely death of Govind Lal, the claimants suffered loss of income and also suffered mental pain and agony. It was mentioned that all the claimants were dependent on his earnings . He was doing business of jewellary and was earning Rs. 15,000/-per month. At the time of death, he was 35 years old. A total compensation of Rs. 55,51,800/-was sought by the claimants under different heads. The claimants are mother, widow and minor children of deceased Govind Lal. 3. Before the Tribunal, none appeared on behalf of Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 despite service of notice, hence ex parte proceedings were initiated against them. 4. On behalf of Respondent No. 4 Insurance Company a reply to the claim petition was submitted wherein the fact of Truck No. GJ-07X-164 being insured with it was admitted. It was state that the deceased was not doing any job. The earning of Rs. 15,000/-per month was stated to be incorrect. It was also stated that the deceased died on account of his own negligence. Neither the truck driver nor the deceased was having a valid and effective driving licence. It was stated to be a case of contributory negligence. It was also submitted that the Insurance Company of scooter was a necessary party but the same has not been made party to the claim petition. Lastly, it was prayed that the claim petition itself be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following six issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- 6. It was also submitted that the Insurance Company of scooter was a necessary party but the same has not been made party to the claim petition. Lastly, it was prayed that the claim petition itself be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following six issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- 6. From the claimants side AW-1 Radha and AW-2 Krishan Gopal were examined and Exhibit-1 Final Report, Exhibit-2 Parcha Bayan, Exhibit-3 FIR, Exhibit-4 Site-Plan, Exhibit-5 Furd Panchayatnama of deceased, Exhibit-6 Sapurdginama of Lash, Exhibit-7 Seizure Memo of Truck, Exhibit-8 Notice under Section 133, M.V. Act, Exhibit-9 MTO Report, Exhibit-10 Post-mortem report, Exhibit-11 Driving Licence of Truck driver, Exhibit-12 Registration Certificate of Truck, Exhibit-13 Insurance Policy were got exhibited. No evidence was led from the side of defence. 7. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of both the parties i.e., truck driver and scooter-rider (deceased) and held their joint responsibility for causing accident fifty-fifty. Vide Judgment and award dated 04.03.1997, the learned Tribunal determined the total compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-and on the basis of responsibility fifty-fifty and awarded compensation of Rs. 75,000/-with interest on the due amount, as mentioned above. The claimant-appellants being aggrieved by the said Judgment and award, have filed the instant appeal. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the records of case. 9. During the course of arguments, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for claimant-appellants that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the material available on record and has given erroneous finding with regard to contributory negligence. 10. It was contended from the side of claimant-appellants that AW. 2, Krishan Gopal, who is an independent witness and whose statement was recorded during the course of investigation by the police, has stated that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck No. GJ-07X-164 and there is no rebuttal from the other side but the learned Tribunal while relying upon the site-plan (Exhibit-4) gave a finding that the driver of truck and deceased-Govind Lal both were negligent. This finding is not sustainable. Thus, the Judgment and award to that extent is liable to be set aside. 11. This finding is not sustainable. Thus, the Judgment and award to that extent is liable to be set aside. 11. It was further contended by learned Counsel for the claimant-appellants that even as per site-plan (Exhibit-4), it is crystal clear that the accident did not occur in the mid of the road. It was submitted that at the place of occurrence, there is a check-post and also a divider. The deceased was riding on his scooter at a slow speed of about 30 Kms. per hour, whereas, as per the version of AW. 2 Krishan Gopal, the truck was being driven by Respondent No. 3 at a high speed, which hit deceased-Govind Lal and as a impact thereof , Govind Lal received injuries on his chest and the truck dragged the scooter upto a certain distance. In this way it was prayed that only the driver of offending truck was responsible for causing the accident. The learned Tribunal without any basis, rhyme/reason has held that the deceased was responsible upto the extent of 50%. The learned Tribunal wrongly decided Issues No. 1 and 7. It was prayed that the finding is not sustainable. 12. It was also contended by the learned Counsel that at the time of accident, the deceased was of 40 years age as per the post-mortem report and was engaged in jewellary business. AW. 1 Smt. Radha (wife of deceased Govind Lal) has categorically stated in her statement that the deceased used to spent nearly Rs. 12,000/- per month on the maintenance of the family. The claimants are the mother, wife and three minor children of deceased. The children are of lower age and were dependent on the earnings of deceased. There is no rebuttal from the other side with regard to the income of deceased, therefore, the statement of AW. 1 should not have been discarded but the learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased as Rs. 1,500/-per month only and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, awarded compensation taking the multiplier of 10, which again was unreasonable and inadequate. 13. It was also contended that in the accident, the scooter of deceased Govind Lal totally got damaged and as per statement of AW. 1 Smt. Radha, a sum of Rs. 5,000/-was spent on getting the same repaired. 13. It was also contended that in the accident, the scooter of deceased Govind Lal totally got damaged and as per statement of AW. 1 Smt. Radha, a sum of Rs. 5,000/-was spent on getting the same repaired. Merely because no bill was produced towards repairing, claim on that head could not have been rejected. Likewise, in the accident cloths worned by deceased got spoiled and shoes worth Rs. 1,000/-were lost but the learned Tribunal has not awarded a single paisa on that count to the claimants. 14. It was also contended that the matter with regard to accident was reported to police and the police after investigation, held the driver of offending truck responsible for causing the accident and accordingly filed challan against him. During the course of investigation, the site of accident was inspected statement of witness were recorded and on that basis, the police had filed challan against Respondent No. 3 driver of offending truck. 15. It was also contended that the driver and owner of the offending truck have not put in appearance before the learned Tribunal nor they have produced any evidence and only the Insurance Company is contesting the claim but it too had not produced any evidence in rebuttal and the contentions raised by Insurance Company are in this way not tenable. Finally it was prayed that the finding with regard to contributory negligence be reversed and it may be held that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving by driver of truck No. GJ-07X-164. Further the quantum of compensation be re-determined and suitable compensation be awarded and the appeal may be allowed. 16. On the other side, learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the learned Tribunal after considering the total material available on record, has rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of both the parties i.e., the driver of truck and rider of scooter. The Tribunal has rightly relied on site-plan (Exhibit-4) prepared by the police authorities. Likewise, the Tribunal has also assessed the monthly income of the deceased because no proof of income was placed from the claimants side. No statement of account or record of income tax return etc. was produced. The learned Tribunal has also rightly used the multiplier of 10. The Tribunal has rightly relied on site-plan (Exhibit-4) prepared by the police authorities. Likewise, the Tribunal has also assessed the monthly income of the deceased because no proof of income was placed from the claimants side. No statement of account or record of income tax return etc. was produced. The learned Tribunal has also rightly used the multiplier of 10. In this contentions placed by the claimants side are not acceptable and the Judgment and award of the lower Court may be maintained and the appeal may be disallowed. 17. I have considered the contentions placed by both the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the Judgment and award of the learned lower Court. 18. During trial, from the claimants side AW. 2 Krishan Gopal (who is witness of occurrence and whose statement was recorded by police during investigation) appeared and was examined. He has stated that at the time of accident, he was going just about 100-150 Meters behind the scooter of deceased Govind-Lal, at that time, offending truck No. GJ-07X-164 which was coming from the front side and was being driven at a high speed. It was also stated that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. He has stated that at that time the scooter which was being driven by Govind Lal was running at a normal speed of 30 Kms. per hour and further stated that the scooter was in one side and the offending truck after coming from wrong side, hit the scooter and dragged it to some distance. He has specifically stated that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of truck driver. He has further stated that after the accident, the injured Govind Lal was taken to hospital in a tempo and he died due to injuries. This witness was crossed by learned Counsel for the Insurance Company but nothing came out which could destroy the credibility of this witness. There is no rebuttal from the other side. 19. The learned Tribunal while considering the statement of AW. 2 Krishan Gopal, also considered site-plan (Exhibit-4) prepared by the police authorities during investigation and on that basis came to the conclusion that deceased was also negligent in driving scooter in the mid of road, but looking to Exhibit-4, such type of conclusion could not drawn. 19. The learned Tribunal while considering the statement of AW. 2 Krishan Gopal, also considered site-plan (Exhibit-4) prepared by the police authorities during investigation and on that basis came to the conclusion that deceased was also negligent in driving scooter in the mid of road, but looking to Exhibit-4, such type of conclusion could not drawn. The matter was investigated by police and the police authorities has not given such sort of finding, rather they have filed challan against the driver of the truck. In this way the statement of AW. 2 is very much material. He has categorically stated that at that time, the scooter was at a normal speed of 30 Kms. per hour but the offending truck was at a high speed and was being driven by Respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent way. In this way the finding given by the learned Tribunal that the driver of the truck as well as the rider of scooter both were negligent in causing accident is not sustainable and is liable to be reversed and it is held that the accident was caused solely by Respondent No. 3 while driving the offending truck No. GJ-07X-164 in a rash and negligent way at a high speed that hit deceased Govind Lal, resulting into his death during treatment within a span of 3 hours. In this way issues No. 1 and 7 are concluded accordingly. The burden of proving other Issues No. 3 to 6 and 8 were on the non-claimants and they have not produced any evidence in this respect. They have rightly been decided against the Insurance Company. 20. I have considered the contentions raised by the claimant-appellants with regard to issue No. 2 (quantum of compensation) determined by the learned Tribunal. It is revealed from the post-mortem report that the age of deceased was 40 years at the time of accident. He was having a widow mother, his wife and three minor children having age 12, 14 and 9 years respectively. It is also stated that they were all dependent on the earning of deceased. He was engaged in jewellary business and used to earn Rs. 15,000/-per month but no other witness or any record of accounts and income etc., have been produced in such a position the monthly income assessed by the learned Tribunal as Rs. 1,500/-per month is not suffering from any infirmity. He was engaged in jewellary business and used to earn Rs. 15,000/-per month but no other witness or any record of accounts and income etc., have been produced in such a position the monthly income assessed by the learned Tribunal as Rs. 1,500/-per month is not suffering from any infirmity. The learned Tribunal taking into consideration his monthly income further deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses. In this way, Rs. 1,000/-was assessed to be the amount spent by the deceased on the claimants and for the welfare of his family, determined compensation taking the multiplier of 10. Thus, taking the multiplier of 10, the learned Tribunal has determined the compensation as Rs. 1,20,000/-but to my mind looking to the age of claimants, particularly they all were dependent on the earnings of deceased and there are children of lower age and there is no other bread-earner in the family, the multiplier of 15 will be suitable and reasonable and on that basis the compensation determined by the learned Tribunal under this head is required to be modified and enhanced to Rs. 1,80,000/-(1000x12x15 ). The learned Tribunal has further awarded total of Rs. 30,000/-for loss of consortium, love and affection, mental agony suffered by the claimants due to untimely death of Govind Lal. This amount is not excessive and is to be maintained. With regard to the other damages, no proof has been produced. No interference is required. In this way, the total compensation comes to Rs. 2,10,000/-in place of Rs. 75,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal. It is further directed that the claimants will be entitled to receive 7 ½ % interest per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 1,35,000/-from the date of filing of the application. 21. The accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of offending truck No. GJ -07X-164, which was being driven by Respondent No. 3 during employment, at that time, the truck was owned by Respondents No. 1 and 2 and it is also admitted and proved from record that the truck No. GJ -07X-164 was insured with United India Insurance Company. In this way all the respondents are jointly and severally responsible for the payment of compensation amount. 22. In this way all the respondents are jointly and severally responsible for the payment of compensation amount. 22. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the finding with regard to contributory negligence is reversed and it is held that the accident occurred solely due to negligence on the part of driver of offending truck No. GJ -07X-164. The modified/enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 2,10,000/- is payable and recoverable jointly and severally from the respondents. The Insurance Company will be entitled to deduct any amount paid or deposited by them in respect of the said award. The Insurance Company is further directed to make payment or deposit the amount with Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara within two months from the date of Judgment alongwith interest @ 7 ½ % per annum on the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,35,000/-from the date of filing of claim petition alongwith due balance, if any. Out of the enhanced amount of compensation, fifty percent of the amount will be deposited as fixed deposit in Nationalised Bank for three years in the name of the widow and children of deceased. Rest of the Judgment and award is confirmed. No order as to costs.