Order Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Since these two appeals arose out of the common judgment one filed by the claimants and another by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The same has been heard together and are disposed of by the common order. M.A. No. 51 of 2007 3. This appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants for enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 110(T)/2001. In Cross Objection No. 9/2007, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and award as the proportionate deduction has not been made in spite of the findings recorded by the tribunal relating to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 4. The deceased was by profession a driver, aged 38 years. He was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No. BR-14P4112. Because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus, the deceased thrown away from the bus and' died. He left behind a widow, three minor sons and three minor daughters and parents who are the claimants. Although the evidence was led by the claimants that the deceased was getting Rs. 3,500/- per month including Rs. 50/- per day as 'Kuraki'. The tribunal deducted Rs. 1,500/- being the 'Kuraki' paid to the deceased per month from the salary and taken Rs. 2,000/- only as the salary of the deceased per month. Out of the said amount again 1/3rd was deducted towards the personal expenditure of the deceased. In this way, Rs. 16,000/- was only taken as annual dependency. By taking multiplier of 14, the amount was assessed Rs. 2,24,000/-. 5. In our view, the tribunal has committed grave error of law in assessing the compensation. As noticed above, for his personal expenditure he was getting a sum of Rs. 50/- per day i.e. Rs. 1,500/- per month. When this amount was deducted then there is no question of again deducting 1/3rd from the monthly salary of the deceased. 6. In our view, therefore, after deducting the expenditure which being incurred by the deceased i.e. Rs. 50/- per day, the annual dependency shall be Rs. 24,000/-. If the multiplier of 14 is taken, the amount comes to Rs. 3,36,000/- which appears to be just and reasonable compensation. 7. Mr. 6. In our view, therefore, after deducting the expenditure which being incurred by the deceased i.e. Rs. 50/- per day, the annual dependency shall be Rs. 24,000/-. If the multiplier of 14 is taken, the amount comes to Rs. 3,36,000/- which appears to be just and reasonable compensation. 7. Mr. D.C. Ghose, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that admittedly, he was sitting on the roof of the bus from where he fell down and died. According to the learned counsel, it is a case of contributory negligence. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel. 8. However, taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and also having regard to the facts that the deceased died leaving behind a widow, six minor sons and daughters besides parents, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs only) shall be just and reasonable compensation. 9. We, therefore, allow this appeal and enhance the amount of compensation from Rs. 2,30,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/-alongwith the interest as awarded by the tribunal. Cross Objection No. 9/2007 10. Mr. D.C. Ghose, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company assailed the judgment/award and stated that the deceased was sitting on the roof of the bus in violation of the policy conditions and therefore the Insurance Company has no liability. 11. Learned counsel further argued about the contributory negligence. 12. Having regard to the facts that the tribunal has given liberty to the appellants to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle and that a sum of Rs. 36,000/- has been deducted on account of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the impugned award needs no interference. 13. Accordingly, the Cress Objection No.9 of 2007 stands disposed of. 14. The respondent-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to calculate the compensation amount along with total interest on the compensation amount and pay the same by handing over the cheque to the claimants on 20th December, 2008 before the Lok Adalat scheduled to be held in the High Court premises. 15. The office of the High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to send notice to the appellants to remain physically present before the Lok Adalat to receive the cheque.