Judgment :- 1. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 22nd November 2004, passed in M.V.C.No.3985/1998, on the file of the XIX Additional SCJ and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-17), (for short, “Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs.3,22,000/-awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs.19,85 Lakhs, is inadequate. 2. The facts in brief are that, the third appellant is no more and she is represented by appellants 1 and 2 who are the wife and daughter of deceased K. Jayaram Bhat. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that at about 9:00 A.M, on 19-03-1998, the deceased was travelling from Bangalore to Chitradurga on his own Ambassador Car bearing No.KA-20/M-4091 and when the driver of the said car was driving slowly and cautiously, when it reached near C.B. Forest on NH-4, Kallambella, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District, a Tanker bearing No.KA-16/A-4849, being driven by its driver at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Car. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained injuries and died. He was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident, which resulted in his death. It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was a business man, being a proprietor of Maheswara Agro Chemicals and aged about 43 years, earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-per month and was an income tax assessee. In view of his untimely death, the family has become haywire and they are in great financial distress. Therefore, they have to be compensated adequately. 3. On account of the death of the deceased, the appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.19.85 lakhs against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 22nd November 2004. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs.3,22,000/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment, after deducting 50% towards contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the deceased. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and also contributory negligence of 50% fixed by Tribunal, the appellants are in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation and also to set aside the contributory negligence. 4. We have heard learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for first and second respondents –Insurance Companies for considerable length of time. Respondent No.3 is served and unrepresented. Notice to fourth respondent is dispensed with vide order dated 31st January 2008. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, after careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and after going through the original records made available, it is seen that the occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. The deceased was a businessman in Chemicals and Fertilizers and has been filing his returns regularly. The Income tax returns for the years 1990-91 till the date of accident has been placed before the Court. The Advance income tax paid receipts and the Income Tax clearance Certificates are also produced before us. It shows that the deceased had the annual income of around Rs.1,40,000/-. The Tribunal has grossly erred in arriving at Rs.6,500/- as the monthly income of the deceased for calculating the loss of dependency. Having right to the income tax returns for three years just prior to the date of accident, and other aspects, we deem it fit and appropriate to re-assess his income at Rs.7,000/- per month. From the said income, if we deduct 1/3rd towards his personal and living expenses, the net monthly income comes to Rs.4,666/-. Since the deceased was 43 years, the proper multiplier as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ) is ‘14’ and adopt the same as against ‘12’ adopted by Tribunal. Accordingly, we re-determine compensation payable towards loss of dependency at Rs.7,83,888/- (i.e. Rs.4,666/- x 12 x ‘14’) as against Rs.6,24,000/- awarded by Tribunal. 6. Further, the Tribunal also erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of love and affection and loss of estate. The deceased has left behind his wife and daughter. Therefore having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of estate. 7. The deceased has left behind his wife and daughter. Therefore having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of estate. 7. However, a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of consortium awarded by Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for interference. 8. Further, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for appellants, fixing of 50% liability on the driver of the Car of the deceased is on the higher side and needs to be modified. In support of his submission, he has taken us through paragraph 10 of the order passed by Tribunal and, wherein it is stated that PWs. 2 and 3 are the witnesses to spot Mahazar Ex.P-2 and they have stated in their evidence that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tanker vehicle. PW3 has stated in his evidence that his statement has been recorded by the Investigating Officer. The Spot Mahazar reveals that the accident occurred on a 23 ft. wide national high way running from North to South. The panchanama also reveals that the Tanker was moving towards left side of the road towards south. The mahazar also reveals that there is a mud road of 10 ft. on either side of the tar road. Therefore, there was still space for the Tanker on the left side of the road to avoid the accident. Having regard to the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 and the fact that Tanker is a large vehicle compared to the Car, the Tribunal held that the accident has occurred due to the composite negligence of Car and Tanker in the ratio of 50:50. It is not disputed that due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Tanker, it has hit the Ambassador Car and the deceased has succumbed to the injuries. Admittedly, the Engine of a Tanker has more horsepower than the Engine of a Car. This aspect of the matter has not been dealt with in a proper perspective. The Tribunal has also not assigned cogent and convincing reasons to come to the conclusion that the driver of the car in which the deceased was an inmate had contributed negligence at 50% to the accident. This aspect of the matter has not been dealt with in a proper perspective. The Tribunal has also not assigned cogent and convincing reasons to come to the conclusion that the driver of the car in which the deceased was an inmate had contributed negligence at 50% to the accident. After careful perusal of the oral evidence of PWs. 2 and 3, who are the witnesses to the spot Mahanzar, and also the documentary evidence at Ex.P2-spot Mahazar, it is crystal clear that the driver of the Tanker could have avoided the accident had he been cautious compared to the driver of the Car. Therefore, taking the aforesaid aspects into consideration, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the 50% contributory negligence fixed by Tribunal and re-fix the contributory negligence / liability in the ratio of 75:25, i.e. 75% of the driver of the Tanker and 25% on the driver of Car, to meet the ends of justice. 9. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 22nd November 2004, passed in M.V.C.No.3985/1998, on the file of the XIX Additional SCJ and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-17), is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs.8,23,888/- as against Rs.6,44,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The break-up is as follows: Towards Loss of Dependency Rs.7,83,888/-Towards Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/-Towards Loss of estate / loss of expectancy Rs. 10,000/-Towards loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/-Towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/-Total Rs.8,23,888/-Out of Rs.8,23,888/-, if 25% is deducted towards contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the offending Car, the net compensation payable to appellants comes to Rs.6,17,916/- as against Rs.3,22,000/-. The enhanced compensation comes to Rs.2,95,916/- The first respondent – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,95,916/-, with interest at 6% per annum, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award. The enhanced compensation comes to Rs.2,95,916/- The first respondent – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,95,916/-, with interest at 6% per annum, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award. Immediately on such deposit by the Insurance Company, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,95,916/-, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with proportionate interest, shall be invested in Fixed Deposit, in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of the first appellant, for a period of five years, renewable by another five years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the interest periodically. The remaining sum of Rs.95,916/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellants 1 and 2 in equal proportion, immediately. Office to draw award, accordingly.