JUDGMENT : N.K. Mody, J. Heard. 2. Being aggrieved by award dated 19.8.2003 passed by M.A.C.T. Mandsaur in Claim Case No. 5 of 2002 whereby claim case filed by appellant was allowed and on account of loss of dependency, compensation was assessed at Rs. 5,46,000 by the learned Tribunal and after deducting half of the amount on account of contributory negligence, a sum of Rs. 2,85,000 was awarded, present appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants argued at length and submits that while Laxmandas was going on his motorbike, he met with an accident with a vehicle bearing registration No. MP 14-G 3358 driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3 which was coming from the opposite direction. It was alleged that because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, accident occurred in which Laxmandas died. It is submitted that liability of respondent No. 3 was not disputed as the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 3. It is submitted that after framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal has deducted half of the amount towards contributory negligence which is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no amount could have been deducted towards contributory negligence as the respondent No. 1 himself has admitted that the accident occurred because respondent No. 1 was trying to save the vehicle from pits. It is submitted that criminal case was registered against respondent No. 1. It is submitted that appeal be allowed and the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal be modified. 4. Mr. Pradeep Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, submits that after due appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal has held that it was the case of contributory negligence. It is submitted that learned Tribunal committed no error in passing the impugned award. It is submitted that appeal be dismissed. 5. From perusal of the record it appears that since a criminal case was registered against respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 himself has admitted that the accident occurred when he was trying to save vehicle from the pits, therefore, there was no justification on the part of learned Tribunal in holding that deceased Laxmandas was equally liable for the accident. So far as multiplier is concerned, keeping in view the age of the deceased multiplier of 13 ought to have been applied instead of 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, appellants are entitled for the following amount : Towards loss of dependency Rs. 5,91,500 Towards loss to estate Rs. 5,000 Towards funeral expenses Rs. 5,000 Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 15,000 Towards loss of consortium Rs. 5,000 Total Rs. 6,21,500 6. Thus, the appellants are entitled for Rs.6,21,500 instead of Rs.2,85,000. The enhanced amount of Rs.3,36,500 shall carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of application. The amount awarded shall be deposited by the insurance company with the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal is directed to invest 80 per cent of the said amount on long-term fixed deposit in the name of appellant No. 1 in the nearest nationalised bank in the area where the appellant No. 1 is residing with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance. Interest on the said amount shall be credited on monthly basis in S.B. account of appellant No. 1, which shall be opened by the appellant No. 1 from where appellant No. 1 can withdraw the amount as per her needs. However, on an application by appellant No. 1 this condition could be modified by the learned Tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellant No. 1. 7. In view of this, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the finding recorded by learned Tribunal so far as it relates to contributory negligence is set aside. 8. With the aforesaid modification the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.