Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by the award dated 31. 8. 2006, passed by the Additional m. A. C. T. , Lakhnadaun in Claim Case No. 13 of 2005 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been partly allowed directing the respondents to pay the compensation of Rs. 3,86,443 (50 per cent of the total amount of compensation of Rs. 7,72,886) with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation on account of death of Suresh Kumar Soni caused in the motor accident. ( 2. ) THE brief facts of the case are that on 5. 1. 2002, Suresh Kumar Soni was going to ganeshganj from Chhapara on his motor cycle (No. MP 20-G 8686) and as soon as he reached near village Kuhiya from the side of Ganeshganj to Seoni on National highway 7 the driver of the tractor (No. MP 22-B 8465) has stationed the tractor on the road due to which Suresh Kumar soni riding his motor cycle dashed it, consequently he sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted in the S. I. M. S. Hospital, nagpur. The report was lodged at Police station, Lakhnadaun, wherein a Crime No. 2 of 2002 was registered against the respondent No. 1 and after due investigation a charge-sheet has been filed in the competent court. It was also averred that the age of Suresh kumar Soni was 34 years. He was in the government service and working as village assistant and getting a sum of Rs. 8,205 per month as salary. The appellants were dependent upon him. They have suffered a great loss, on account of the death of suresh Kumar Soni, therefore, the claim petition was filed for awarding compensation of Rs. 61,25,000. ( 3. ) RESPONDENT No. 1 has himself admitted that he stationed his tractor-trolley on account of it being punctured but there is no negligence on his part, therefore, he prayed to dismiss the claim petition. ( 4. ) THE respondent No. 2 did not submit the written statement, therefore, he was proceeded ex parte. ( 5. ) THE respondent No. 3 has submitted the written statement disputing the claim and denying its liability mainly contending that the respondent was not having valid and effective driving licence. ( 4. ) THE respondent No. 2 did not submit the written statement, therefore, he was proceeded ex parte. ( 5. ) THE respondent No. 3 has submitted the written statement disputing the claim and denying its liability mainly contending that the respondent was not having valid and effective driving licence. The vehicle was used for commercial purpose hence there is a breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy. It was further contended that Suresh Kumar Soni himself was negligent as he drove the motor cycle rashly and negligently, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. ( 6. ) THE Tribunal found that the respondent No. 1 stationed the tractor-trolley No. MP 22-B 8465 on the national highway without any indicator, Suresh Kumar Soni dashed his motor cycle with it and consequently he sustained injuries and died. The tribunal found that Suresh Kumar Soni was also negligent for this accident. 50 per cent negligence was attributed to Suresh kumar Soni. It was further found that the respondent No. 1 was having valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was not being used for commercial purposes, thus the Tribunal determined the total compensation of Rs. 7,72,886, out of which the respondents were directed to pay rs. 3,86,443 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum to the appellants for the death of Suresh Kumar Soni from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation. ( 7. ) BEING dissatisfied with this award the appellants have preferred this appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of compensation on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. ( 8. ) THE learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the finding of the tribunal is erroneous to the extent that the deceased himself was also negligent in contributing to this accident and thereby entitled to 50 per cent amount of com-pensation. It was further submitted that the awarded amount is also insufficient hence the same be suitably enhanced. ( 9. ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents have supported the award and submitted that the finding of the tribunal that the deceased himself was also negligent for to contributing this accident is proper, the suitable compensation has been awarded hence it does not call for any interference. ( 10. ( 9. ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents have supported the award and submitted that the finding of the tribunal that the deceased himself was also negligent for to contributing this accident is proper, the suitable compensation has been awarded hence it does not call for any interference. ( 10. ) THE main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the Tribunal has committed any illegality in holding the deceased also liable for contributing to this accident to the extent of 50 per cent and deducting the compensation to that extent and also whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. ( 11. ) WE have perused the case and the entire evidence adduced therein. ( 12. ) KAMLESH Thakur, CW 2, has deposed that the tractor-trolley was stationed on the road in the dangerous condition and no indicator had been applied, consequently suresh Kumar Soni dashed with it from behind and sustained the grievous injuries, he became unconscious, he was brought to ganeshganj in the wounded condition and the information was given by him to the family members of Suresh Kumar Soni. Suresh Kumar Soni remained in coma up to one year and died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident. ( 13. ) THE respondent No. 1 has himself admitted in the written statement that the tractor-trolley was stationed on the road because of being punctured. No evidence is adduced that tractor-trolley was parked properly or some indicators were applied. Kamlesh Thakur, CW 2, has stated that there was darkness and the trucks were coming from the front side. From his evidence, it appears that Suresh Kumar Soni could not see the stationed tractor-trolley because of not applying the indicator. In such situation Suresh Kumar Soni dashed the motor cycle from behind, sustained injuries and consequently died. ( 14. ) IN the case of New India Assurance co. Ltd. v. Kalpana, 2007 (1) MPHT 423 (SC): 2007 ACJ 825 (SC), the Apex Court has laid down thus: "the deceased was driving his vehicle which dashed with a truck parked on a road in a running condition without any indicator. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and later died. The finding of the Tribunal that accident took place on account of negligence of the deceased dismissed the claim petition which was set aside in appeal by the High Court. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and later died. The finding of the Tribunal that accident took place on account of negligence of the deceased dismissed the claim petition which was set aside in appeal by the High Court. The High Court held that the accident occurred because the truck was parked negligently on the road in a running condition without any indicator. In these circumstances, the High Court held that the insurer was liable to pay compensation. In appeal by special leave before the Apex Court filed by the insurance company contending that compensation has been wrongly fixed, the Supreme court explained in detail the multiplier method. Thus reducing the amount of compensation, the appeal was allowed to that extent. " In the light of the Apex Court judgment and in the facts and circumstances of this case, we held that this accident was the result of negligent act of the respondent no. 1, consequently Suresh Kumar Soni dashed with the stationed tractor-trolley and sustained the injuries and succumbed to the said injuries. Thus we set aside the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was also negligent in contributing to this accident to the extent of 50 per cent and, therefore, the deduction of the half of the amount of compensation is not proper. This finding is also set aside. ( 15. ) WE have to consider whether the tribunal has awarded adequate compensation or not. ( 16. ) RAJNI Soni, CW 1, has deposed that her husband was posted as village assistant (secretary) in Village Panchayat, Gagai (Chhapara) and he was getting salary a sum of Rs. 8,205 per month along with allowances. She has filed the last pay certificate, exh. P10, issued by Sarpanch of Village panchayat, Gagai (Chhapara ). On perusal of L. P. C. , we find that Suresh Kumar Soni was getting Rs. 8,205 per month. Out of which a sum of Rs. 100 is only deductible. By doing so his monthly income comes to Rs. 8,105, after deducting 1/3rd amount which the deceased might have spent upon himself had he been alive, the dependency comes at Rs. 5,450, annually Rs. 65,400. Since he was of 35 years of age, hence the multiplier of 17 is applicable, by doing so, compensation is arrived at Rs. 11,11,800. In addition the appellants are also entitled for a sum of Rs. 5,450, annually Rs. 65,400. Since he was of 35 years of age, hence the multiplier of 17 is applicable, by doing so, compensation is arrived at Rs. 11,11,800. In addition the appellants are also entitled for a sum of Rs. 30,000 in the customary heads such as funeral expenses, loss to the estate, loss of expectancy of life including rs. 7,500 to be awarded to the widow for the loss of consortium, thus the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 11,41,800. It is also borne out from the evidence that the appellants have incurred the medical expenses of Rs. 92,886 for his treatment. Thus by getting this amount the total compensation is worked out at Rs. 12,34,686. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing this petition till realisation. The total amount is to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally. ( 17. ) RESULTANTLY, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.