Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The appellant has challenged the award dated 03.03.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur wherein the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.15,10,000/- in favour of the claimant-respondents. 2. Mr. Virendra Agarwal, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised three contentions before this Court : firstly, since the accident occurred in the middle of the road, a presumption should be drawn that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the offending vehicles. Thus, the negligence of the truck driver is only 50%. Hence, the learned Tribunal is not justified in foisting the entire compensation amount upon the Insurance Company of the truck. Secondly, according to the Salary Certificate (Ex.79), the salary of the deceased is shown as it stood in 2008. However, as the accident had occurred on 03.12.2007, his salary as it stood on 03.12.2007 should have been taken as the salary of the deceased. Therefore, the assessment of income made by the learned Tribunal is clearly erroneous. Thirdly, according to the learned counsel, since the deceased was 52 years old, since he was about to retire after a lapse of six years, therefore, the learned Tribunal was not justified in applying the multiplier of 11 in this case. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. 4. A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that Kana Ram (AW.3) and Rajesh Chaudhary (AW.4) were travelling in the car which met with an accident. Thus, they are eyewitnesses of the accident. According to both these witnesses, while the car was travelling on the correct side of the road, the truck, which was being driven rashly and negligently, came from the wrong side of the road and collided with the car. Resultantly the some of the passengers suffered injuries while others died. Once there is a clear cut evidence of the eyewitnesses, then this Court cannot draw the presumption that since it was a head on collision between two vehicles, therefore, necessarily negligence is attributable to both the sides. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel is without merit. 5. Once there is a clear cut evidence of the eyewitnesses, then this Court cannot draw the presumption that since it was a head on collision between two vehicles, therefore, necessarily negligence is attributable to both the sides. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel is without merit. 5. A bare perusal of the Salary certificate (Ex.79) also shows the remarks, as under : osru izek.k i= izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd Lo- Jh Hkojyky tkV iq= NksVwjke fo/kqrdkj II ¼e`R;q fnukad 20-12-2007½ osrueku 2008 esa fLFkjhdj.k ds i'pkr~ fuEu izdkj ls osru ns; gksrk gSA ewy osru & Rs. 13460/- egaxkbZ HkÙkk & Rs. 12111/- edku fdjk;k & Rs. 1226/- lgkjk HkÙkk & Rs. 240/- ;ksx & Rs. 16137.00 ¼Rs. lksyg gtkj ,d lsrhl ek=½ 6. It is, indeed, common knowledge that arrears of salary were paid to the Government employees once the Sixth Pay Commission came into being. Therefore, the said figures rightly declares the salary of the deceased to be Rs.16,137/- per month as on 03.12.2007. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in taking the said amount to be the salary earned by the deceased. Therefore, the second contention raised by the learned counsel is also unacceptable. 7. The third contention raised by the learned counsel is also unacceptable. For, according to the Schedule, in case a victim happens to be between the age of 50 and 55 years, a multiplier of 11 should be applied. Merely because the deceased was going to retire, that too after a long lapse of six years, it would not prevent the learned Tribunal from applying the multiplier of 11. Therefore, even this contention is unworthy of acceptable. 8. Thus, this appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.