JUDGMENT :- Seth, J. 1. This appeal is by the mother and major brothers of the deceased, Nemichand, who died in a motor accident. 2. On 10.7.2000, two newly married couples hired a Tempo Trax from Parasmal Jain, the owner of Tempo Trax. Nemichand was sent along with Tempo Trax as the driver thereof. On 14.7.2000, Tempo Trax was hit by video coach when it was going from Udaipur to Mount Abu. The impact was so severe that three persons died on the spot including Nemichand. At the time of accident, Nemichand was bachelor of 25 years of age. For the death of Nemichand, his mother and two major brothers filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) claiming total sum of Rs. 15,25,000 as compensation. 3. On the fateful day, Tempo Trax was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 5. The video coach bus was being driven by Sevaram and it belonged to Mohanlal and was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 3. The claim petition was resisted by respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and each tried to pass on the buck on the other so far as liability is concerned. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence found that Nemichand died on account of accident occurred on 14.7.2000. From the tenor of the judgment it appears that learned Claims Tribunal was of the view that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of video coach, but without assigning any reason, Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was also negligent to the extent of 20 per cent. Thus, the Claims Tribunal held that it was a case of contributory negligence. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,70,000, out of which Claims Tribunal directed the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 1,36,000 and remaining Rs. 34,000 was to be paid by National Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 5, to the mother alone. 5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of court below, we find that the Claims Tribunal has assigned no reason to come to the conclusion that it was a case of contributory negligence. 34,000 was to be paid by National Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 5, to the mother alone. 5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of court below, we find that the Claims Tribunal has assigned no reason to come to the conclusion that it was a case of contributory negligence. The Claims Tribunal has held that Tempo Trax was a light motor vehicle as compared to video coach. It has also come on record that the impact was so severe that 3 persons travelling in Tempo Trax died on the spot. Thus, it cannot be said to be a case of contributory negligence. Assuming without conceding that it was a case of contributory negligence, then the direction to National Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay Rs. 34,000 would be erroneous because if a person himself is negligent, then he may not get compensation under the general law of Torts. As stated hereinabove, we are not satisfied with the finding that it was a case of contributory negligence and, therefore, we set aside the said finding of the Claims Tribunal and hold that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the video coach. Hence, there is no question of apportionment of liability or compensation. Since, we have held that the driver of the video coach was responsible for causing the accident, therefore, it is only the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 who are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and no amount is payable by National Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 5. If National Insurance Co. Ltd. has paid any amount in terms of impugned award, then the respondent No. 3 while making the payment shall deduct the said amount and pay to National Insurance Co. Ltd. 6. Now coming to the damages awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side. Claims Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased was a professional driver. Learned Claims Tribunal considering the evidence has held that monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 1,500 and thus the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 18,000. Claims Tribunal after deducting conventional one third amount towards personal expenses has assessed annual loss of dependency at Rs. 12,000. It is submitted that the deceased was a professional driver. Learned Claims Tribunal considering the evidence has held that monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 1,500 and thus the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 18,000. Claims Tribunal after deducting conventional one third amount towards personal expenses has assessed annual loss of dependency at Rs. 12,000. The Claims Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13 considering the age of deceased and assessed the annual loss of dependency at Rs. 1,56,000. In addition to this, Tribunal also awarded Rs. 14,000 for funeral expenses, loss to estate, transportation of dead body and thus, awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,70,000 together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. 7. Per contra, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., respondent No. 3, submitted that the Claims Tribunal ought to have deducted at least half of the amount for personal expenses because the deceased was a bachelor, This submission was based on the latest decision of the Supreme Court. In the year 2000, at the time of accident, usually one third amount was deducted for personal expenses. 8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, in the considered opinion of this court, just and proper amount of compensation has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal and we find no infirmity with the impugned award. Impugned award does not call for any interference. Thus, appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000 (rupees one thousand), if certified.