Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-Despite the death of twenty-two years old young man, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (henceforth to be referred to as the RSRTC the short) is aggrieved by the grant of compensation of Rs. 2,70,000/-to the aggrieved parents. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 011.2002 Mukesh, who was working as a photographer and as a motorcycle mechanic, was driving a motorcycle. Near the Village Logjod, the said motorcycle met with an accident with a bus, bearing Registration No. RJ.18P-1030 as according to the witnesses, the bus was being driven in a most rash and negligent manner. Consequently, Mukesh died. His aggrieved parents filed a claim petition against the R.S.R.T.C. and driver of the bus. In order to substantiate their case, they examined three witnesses and submitted twenty-one documents. On the other hand, the R.S.R.T.C. also examined three witnesses and also produced twenty-one documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal was pleased to grant a compensation as aforementioned. 3. Mr. Virendra Agarwal, the learned Counsel for the appellants, has raised two contentions before us. Firstly, that it is a case of a head on collision between the bus and the motorcycle. In case of a head on collision, the Tribunal should have presumed that it was a case of contributory negligence. Therefore, sole responsibility for the accident could not be hoisted on the bus driver, Secondly, since the deceased was unmarried person, while calculating the loss of dependency, 2/3 of the income should have been dedutted and only 1/3 of the loss of dependency should have been granted to the parents. However, the Tribunal has only deducted 1/3 for the loss of dependency. Hence, the Tribunal has committed a legal error. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and have perused the impugned award. 5. There is no presumption of law warranted by the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (henceforth to be referred to as the Act for short) that in a case of a head on collision, the Tribunal shall presume that this is a case of contributory negligence. Therefore, such a presumption cannot be raised and applied. Since, there is no such legal presumption, the Tribunal cannot be defaulted for not raising the presumption against the claimants. Mr. Therefore, such a presumption cannot be raised and applied. Since, there is no such legal presumption, the Tribunal cannot be defaulted for not raising the presumption against the claimants. Mr. Virendra Agarwal, the learned Counsel for the appellants, could not cite even a single case where such a presumption has been created by the judicial interpretation. Hence, first contention raised by the learned Counsel is unwarranted. 6. According to the note appended in the Second Schedule attached to the Act only 1/3(sic) of the loss of dependency is to be deducted on the presumption that the deceased would have spent 1/3 of his earning on himself . Therefore, the law does not permit the deduction of 2/3 of the earning by the Claim Tribunal. Since, the Second Schedule of the Act is clear in its intention, the rule of golden interpretation is applicable the provisions of law have to be interpreted according to the plain and grammatical meaning. Hence, 2/3 deduction of the dependency in case of unmarried person is not sanctioned by law. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in deducing only 1/3 of the dependency in the present case. Therefore, the second contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants is also meritless. 7. In the result, there is no force in this appeal. It is, hereby dismissed.