JUDGMENT Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. :- 1. The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 21/12/2000 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in Claim Case No.2/ 2000. 2. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 18,26,500/- on account of death of his mother Smt. Kalyani in the motor accident, which took place on 03/03/1999, when his motor cycle, on which the deceased was sitting as a pillion rider, was . dashed from the back side by the offending vehicle Tata 407 bearing registration No.MP-26 G 4591. 3. The claimant pleaded that when he was going on his motorcycle and his mother was sitting as a pillion rider, the offending vehicle came from the back side and dashed the motorcycle, due to which, his mother fell down and she was dragged with the bus to some distance. When hue and cry was made by the people, the driver of the offending vehicle stopped and reversed the vehicle rashly and negligently and the tyres of the vehicle again ran over the legs of his mother. She was taken to the hospital, where she died on account of injuries sustained by her. The claimant further pleaded that he was dependant on his mother, who was aged about 59 years and was running coaching classes and earning Rs. 13,000/per month, therefore, the said amount of compensation be awarded to him. 4. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte, however, the Insurance Company contested the claim. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that it was a case of contributory negligence and the driver of the motorcycle i.e. the claimant had also contributed in the accident to the extent of 25%, It further recorded a finding that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by running the coaching classes, but, she was bearing expenditure of Rs.2500/- per month to run those classes and was also spending Rs,2500/- per month on her personal expenses, therefore, she was contributing Rs,5000/- per month in the family. The Tribunal assessed the dependency of the claimant to the extent of Rs.4000/- per month and Rs.48,000/per annum. By applying multiplier of to the annual dependency of Rs.48,000/-, the loss of dependency was worked out to Rs.2,88,000/-. The Tribunal assessed the dependency of the claimant to the extent of Rs.4000/- per month and Rs.48,000/per annum. By applying multiplier of to the annual dependency of Rs.48,000/-, the loss of dependency was worked out to Rs.2,88,000/-. By deducting 25% from the said amount towards contributory negligence of the appellant, the final amount payable under the said head was worked out to Rs.2, 16,000/-. By further adding a sum of Rs.4500/- towards the expenditure incurred in repairing of the motorcycle and Rs.2000/- towards the funeral expenses of the deceased, the total amount of compensation payable to the claimant on account of death of his mother was determined as Rs.2,22,500/-. The Tribunal further awarded interest on the said amount@ 12.5% per annum from the date of filling of the claim petition till its realization. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the finding of contributed negligence recorded by the Tribunal. He has also challenged the award on quantum saying that a low income has been assessed by the Tribunal and a low multiplier has been used by it. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case. 9. As far as finding with regard to contributory negligence is concerned, we do not find it correct in the facts and circumstances of this case. The claimant, who examined himself as A W - 3 deposed that he was going on a low speed and the said mini bus, which was coming from the back side, dashed his motorcycle, due to which, his mother, who was sitting as a pillion rider fell down, and got tangled with the front wheel of the bus and she was dragged to some distance by it. When the people made hue and cry, the driver stopped the bus and reversed it and then, it again ran over his mother. His mother received serious injuries on legs, head, hands and her left leg was completely crushed. She also received injuries on her right leg and ultimately, died in the hospital. A W -1 - Atal Shrivastava has also been examined on this point. His mother received serious injuries on legs, head, hands and her left leg was completely crushed. She also received injuries on her right leg and ultimately, died in the hospital. A W -1 - Atal Shrivastava has also been examined on this point. He deposed that the mini bus was in a high speed and it dashed the motorcycle of the appellant from the back side, due to which, the mother of the appellant fell down and the said bus ran over her leg and she was dragged to a distance of8-1O ft. When the driver of the mini bus reversed the bus, it again ran over the leg of the deceased. He was the witness to Panchnama also. In the cross-examination of these two witnesses, nothing could be brought on record to show that either the appellant was negligent or he did something, from which it may be inferred that he also contributed in the occurrence of the said accident. It is worth mentioning that the driver of the bus had not appeared in the witness box either to rebut this evidence or to explain as to how the accident occurred. The Tribunal has recorded the finding of contributory negligence on the ground that the appellant suddenly brought his motorcycle in a low speed, due to which, the mini bus dashed the motorcycle and while bringing the motorcycle in a slow speed, he did not give any signal, therefore, he was also responsible for the said accident. 10. In the matter of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. K. Hemlatha and others, the Apex Court held that "To determine the question that who contributed to the happening of the accident, it becomes relevant to ascertain who was driving his vehicle negligently and rashly and in case both were so being who was more responsible for the accident and who of the two had the last opportunity to avoid the accident. In case the damages are to be apportioned, it must also be found that the plaintiff's fault was one of the causes of the damage and once the condition is fulfilled the damages have to be apportioned according to the apportioned share of the responsibility. The Apex Court said that if the negligence on the plaintiffs part has also contributed to damage this cannot be ignored in assessing the damages. The Apex Court said that if the negligence on the plaintiffs part has also contributed to damage this cannot be ignored in assessing the damages. He can be found guilty of contributory negligence if he ought to have foreseen that if he did not act as a reasonable, reasoned man, he might him self be hit and he must take into account the possibility of others being careless." 11. In the facts and circumstances of this case and on the basis of material available on record, on the above principles, we cannot accept such finding. The accident took place in the dense locality of the township, where everyone drives in a normal speed and when the motorcycle was going ahead the bus, it was the duty of the bus driver to remain cautious, so that he may be able to control the bus when any vehicle going ahead is either stopped or is brought to a low speed at once. In all probability and precaution the driver of the mini bus ought to have maintained some distance from the vehicle going ahead, but, if this was not done by the driver of the mini bus, then, certainly, he was driving the bus rashly and negligently and he alone would be responsible for the accident committed by such living of the bus. Not only Gas, when the deceased got tangled with the wheels of the mini bus and was dragged to one distance, the bus driver, in all precautions, would have stopped the bus at one but he did not do so and when the hue and cry was made by the people, he, without judging the prevailing situation, reversed the bus, as if nothing has happened, due to which, the bus again ran over the legs of the deceased. 12. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on contributory negligence cannot I be sustained and the same is set aside. 13. As far as arguments on quantum is concerned, the appellant has pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.13,000/- per month, but in his evidence, the appellant admitted that she was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The Tribunal on the basis of documents filed by the appellant assessed the monthly income of the recessed to be Rs. 10,000/- and after making deductions of Rs.6,000/-, as stated above, the dependency was assessed to Rs4000/- per month. The Tribunal on the basis of documents filed by the appellant assessed the monthly income of the recessed to be Rs. 10,000/- and after making deductions of Rs.6,000/-, as stated above, the dependency was assessed to Rs4000/- per month. After going through the entire evidence available on record, we do not find any fault in such assessment made by the Tribunal. 14. Considering the age of the deceased as 59 years, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 6, which is not unreasonable. The Tribunal has also awarded the amount towards repair charges of motorcycle and funeral expenses, which, in our considered opinion, do not call for any interference by this Court and there is hardly any scope for enhancement of the amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal on the ground of income or low multiplier used by it 15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The finding of the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence is set aside. It is held that the driver of the minibus was driving the bus rashly and negligently, therefore, he alone was responsible for the accident in question and the appellant has not contributed in the said accident and he was entitled to receive the entire amount of compensation of Rs.2,88,000/-, as assessed by the Claims Tribunal along with the amount of Rs.6500/- under other permissible heads. Thus, he was entitled to receive Rs.2,94,500/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.2,22,500/-, therefore, the difference of amount i.e. Rs.72,000/- more along with interest shall be deposited by the Insurance Company. Though the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum but looking to the period elapsed and considering the factors for not corning this appeal for hearing for about eight years, we deem it proper to direct for payment of interest on this amount@6%perannumonly, which shall be calculated from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 16. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. 17. No costs. Appeal Partly Allowed.