Judgment :- N.K. Patil J, 1. These two appeals by the insurer and the claimants are directed against the same impugned judgment and award dated 20.06.2006 passed in MVC No.5451/2002 on the file of the XI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH No.12) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short). 2. The Tribunal by its impugned judgment and award has awarded Rs.16,81,180/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization, as against the claim of the claimants for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased Shri.R.S. Prasad in the road traffic accident. 3. The insurer claimed that though the Tribunal has discussed in the body of the judgment regarding the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased at 25%, it has awarded compensation to the claimants without deducting any amount towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The insurer has further contended that quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants is also on the higher side and has to be reduced substantially and hence, felt necessitated to file the appeal-MFA 10863/2006. 4. The claimants contending that the contributory negligence fixed on the deceased is on the higher side and that the compensation awarded to them is on the lower side, felt necessitated to file the appeal-MFA 11809/2006. 5. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Claimant No.1 is the wife of the deceased and claimants 2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased. They filed claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the M.V.Act on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident that occurred on 29/30-10.2002 at about 1.30 a.m. when the deceased after finishing his usual work left the office at late night in his car bearing No.KA-03/P-3083, driving carefully and slowly on Bangalore-Chennai NH4. When he reached near Abbaiah Garden, on the said road, a truck-trailer (HTV) bearing Regn.No.KA-01/B-1449 was parked in the middle of the road with a full load of steel/iron rods used in fabrication of beams protruding outside the body of the vehicle, unattended without any signals, signs or indications to warn or to caution the other road users. It was pitch dark at the place of accident and there was no proper visible lights on the road. It was pitch dark at the place of accident and there was no proper visible lights on the road. As the deceased could not sight the same, he went and dashed against the said tractor-trailer from its behind. Due to the impact, the car was extensively damaged. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot. The claimants further contended that the deceased was aged about 35 years, working as a Development Officer in LIC, drawing salary of Rs.30,836/-p.m. plus incentives. The deceased was the sole bread winner in the family. On account of the untimely death of the deceased the first claimant, wife of deceased, has lost her life partner at the young age and claimants 2 and 3, parents, have lost the love and affection of their son, security, future hopes and aspirations in life. The Tribunal taking into consideration all these factors, perusing the oral and documentary evidence and other material on record, awarded compensation of Rs.16,81,180/-with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization. Both the insurer and the claimants, not being satisfied with the judgment and award of the Tribunal felt necessitated to file the instant appeals, as stated supra. 6. The learned counsel for the insurer, at the outset, submitted that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in not fixing the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. As a matter of fact, as per the recitals in the sketch and mahazar, it discloses that the offending vehicle had been parked properly on the left side of the road from the middle line marking. That indicated it was parked towards the left side of the road at about 4 ft. on account of the rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased without properly making use of the rest of the road which had been left to the right side of lorry, he has dashed against offending vehicle and therefore contributory negligence has to be fixed at 50% on the deceased. He brought to our notice that though the Tribunal has discussed in the body of the judgment regarding the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased at 25%, it has awarded compensation to the claimants without deducting any amount towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. He brought to our notice that though the Tribunal has discussed in the body of the judgment regarding the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased at 25%, it has awarded compensation to the claimants without deducting any amount towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. As a matter of fact, as per the recitals in the sketch and the mahazar, it discloses that the offending vehicle had been parked properly on the left side of the road from the middle line marking. That indicated it was parked towards the left side of the road at about 4 ft. on account of the rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased without properly making use of the rest of the road which had been left to the right side of lorry, he has dashed against offending vehicle and therefore the contributory negligence has to be fixed at 50% on the deceased. He further contended that the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants is on the higher side and it has to be reduced. Therefore, he prays for modification of the impugned judgment and award of the tribunal. 7. As against this, the learned counsel for the claimants, interalia, contended and vehemently submitted that fixing of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased at 25% by the Tribunal is not sustainable for the reason that the offending vehicle was parked in the middle of the road loaded with iron beams protruding outside the body of the trailer, unattended and without any signal or indication or caution to the other road users. The fact that the place where the vehicle was parked was dark and the vehicles or any other objects in the front was not visible are not in dispute. From the recitals in the panchanama it is clear that the deceased has applied brakes in order to avoid accident and that is fortified by 50 ft. tyre marks found on the road. This aspect of the matter has not been looked into, considered by the Tribunal in fixing the contributory negligence. Further, he contended that the compensation awarded to the claimants towards loss of dependency and conventional heads is on the lower side and it requires enhancement by modifying the impugned judgment and award. 8. tyre marks found on the road. This aspect of the matter has not been looked into, considered by the Tribunal in fixing the contributory negligence. Further, he contended that the compensation awarded to the claimants towards loss of dependency and conventional heads is on the lower side and it requires enhancement by modifying the impugned judgment and award. 8. After careful consideration of the submissions of the counsel on both sides, the points that arise for our consideration in these appeals are as follows:- i) Whether the contributory negligence fixed on the part of the deceased at 25% and on the driver of the offending vehicle at 75%, is just and proper? ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants is just and reasonable ? 9. Re: point No.1: After careful perusal of Exs.P1 to P5, what emerges is that, charge sheet as per Ex.P4, has been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle which is not in dispute. Further, it is crystal clear from the perusal of Ex.P2-sketch and Ex.P4-panchanama that the lorry has been parked on the middle of the road leaving 4 ft from the mid-line and though there was 4ft mud road attached to the road on its left side, the driver of the truck had not parked the vehicle and there was no easy access to other vehicles while crossing the mid line. Further, it is significant to note that the driver of the truck had parked the vehicle without giving any indication such as parking lights or signals. The accident occurred at around 1:30 a.m. and at time, the place was completely dark at there were no street lights. Further, from the perusal of the recitals of the mahazar/panchanama it is clear that, the deceased has tried his best to avoid the accident by applying brakes which is supported by the tyre marks found on the road to the extent of 50 ft. and in spite of it, he could not avoid and as a result he rammed his car against the truck. This is evident from the documentary evidence and also the oral evidence available on record. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited by the insurer who was examined as PW3. and in spite of it, he could not avoid and as a result he rammed his car against the truck. This is evident from the documentary evidence and also the oral evidence available on record. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited by the insurer who was examined as PW3. However, from the careful perusal of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, what emerges is that, had the deceased driven his car slowly he could have avoided the collision since it is evident from the records that, on seeing the truck being parked, he had tried to apply brake as is evident from the tyre marks on the road to the extent of about 50 ft. The Tribunal has rightly looked into this aspect of the matter and has recorded the finding of fact holding that there is some negligence on the part of the deceased also, to the extent of 25%, which is just and proper. After reappreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, we also concur with the said finding of the Tribunal while fixing the contributory negligence at 25% on the deceased and 75% on the driver of the offending vehicle and therefore, interference by this Court is not called for. 10. Re. Point No.2:- The occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. The deceased was aged about 35 years working as a Development Officer in LIC drawing salary of Rs.30,836/- p.m. plus incentives. The learned counsel on both sides, after evaluation of the material on record pointed out that, after deducting income tax and profession tax, the net income of the deceased comes to Rs.26,744/- p.m. we accept the same. Out of which, one-third, is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and we arrive at the net income at Rs. 17,830/- p.m. Having regard to the age of the deceased at 35 years, by applying Sarla Verma’s case, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 16. we re-determine the compensation towards loss of dependency at Rs.34,23,360/- (Rs.17830 x 12 x 16). Accordingly, we award a sum of Rs.34,23,360/- towards loss of dependency. Further, it is not in dispute that the deceased was the sole bread winner in the family. we re-determine the compensation towards loss of dependency at Rs.34,23,360/- (Rs.17830 x 12 x 16). Accordingly, we award a sum of Rs.34,23,360/- towards loss of dependency. Further, it is not in dispute that the deceased was the sole bread winner in the family. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, the first claimant, wife of deceased, has lost her life partner at the young age and claimants 2 and 3, parents, have lost the love and affection of their son and their security, future hopes and aspirations in life have been jeopardized. There is sever social and financial distress in the family. Taking these aspects into consideration, we deem it just and proper to award Rs.10,000/-towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies expenses. The total compensation comes to Rs.34,63,360/-. out of which, if contributory negligence at 25% (Rs.8,65,840/-) is deducted, the compensation to which the claimants would be entitled to is Rs.25,97,520/-. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the appeal filed by the insurer-MFA No.10863/2006 is disposed of and the appeal filed by the claimants-MFA 11809/2006 is allowed in part and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.5451/2002 dated 20.06.2006 is hereby modified, granting the compensation of Rs.25,97,520/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization as against Rs.16,81,180/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation comes to Rs.9,16,340/- which carries interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization The insurer is hereby directed to deposit the remaining compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and award. The apportionment and the manner of disbursement of compensation ordered by Tribunal is hereby modified. Out of the total compensation of Rs.25,97,520/- a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in Fixed Deposit in the name of the first claimant-site of deceased, in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of five years renewable by five years with liberty to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically. Out of the total compensation of Rs.25,97,520/- a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in Fixed Deposit in the name of the first claimant-site of deceased, in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of five years renewable by five years with liberty to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically. Future, a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- each with proportionate interest shall be invested in fixed deposit in any nationalized or Scheduled Bank in the names of claimants 1 and 2 – parents of deceased for a period of 3 years renewable for another 3 years with liberty to them to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically. The remaining compensation of Rs.1,97,520/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of claimants 1,2 and 3 in equal proportion, immediately, on deposit by the insurer. The amount, if any, in deposit by the insurer shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Office is directed to draw the award, accordingly.