JUDGMENT : N.K. Mody, J. Being aggrieved by the award dated 23.3.2005 passed by M.A.C.T., Bhanpur in Claim Case No. 11 of 2004 whereby the claim application filed by the appellants was allowed and in a death case a sum of Rs. 1,67,000 was assessed as compensation, out of which 50 per cent was deducted on account of contributory negligence on the part of deceased, the present appeal has been filed. Short facts of the case are that the appellants filed a claim petition alleging that Deepak was son of appellant Nos. 1 and 2, husband of appellant No. 3 and the father of appellant No. 4 who was going on motorbike on 12.11.2003 along with Rafeeq and Firoz. It was alleged that on that day at about 5.30 p.m. the said motorbike met with an accident with a jeep bearing registration No. MP 14-C 2803 which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 4. It was alleged that since accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of jeep driver, therefore, claim petition be allowed and compensation be awarded. The claim petition was contested by respondent No. 4 on various grounds including the ground that deceased was not possessing a valid driving licence and because of rash and negligent driving by the deceased, the accident occurred. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and assessed compensation as stated above but awarded 50 per cent amount after deducting 50 per cent on account of contributory negligence, against which the present appeal has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Tribunal committed error in holding the deceased liable for the accident to the extent of 50 per cent. Learned counsel submits that criminal case was registered against respondent No. 1. It is submitted that it is true that deceased was not possessing a driving licence but only because the deceased was not possessing a driving licence, the deceased cannot be held liable for the accident to the extent of 50 per cent. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. It is submitted that it is true that deceased was not possessing a driving licence but only because the deceased was not possessing a driving licence, the deceased cannot be held liable for the accident to the extent of 50 per cent. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. Surinder Singh and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 436 , wherein the offending vehicle was being driven by a minor who was not possessing a driving licence and there was a collision between a mini truck and two-wheeler. In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court held that : If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini truck which was being driven rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence. 3. The learned counsel submits that in absence of any evidence in rebuttal only because the deceased was not possessing a driving licence, it cannot be said that deceased was equally liable for the accident. Learned counsel submits that it is also true that three persons were travelling on the said motorbike but in evidence nothing has come on the basis of which it can be said that cause of accident was travelling of 3 persons on a motorbike. For this reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Devi Singh Vs. Vikram Singh and Others, (2008) ACJ 393, wherein Full Bench of this court has held that violation of section 128 per se by a motorcyclist does not raise contributory negligence. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, learned counsel submits that accident is of the year 2003. The income of the deceased has been assessed on notional basis while the documentary evidence is on record to demonstrate that deceased was earning Rs. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, learned counsel submits that accident is of the year 2003. The income of the deceased has been assessed on notional basis while the documentary evidence is on record to demonstrate that deceased was earning Rs. 3,000 per month. It is submitted that the appeal be allowed, amount be enhanced and findings regarding contributory negligence be set aside. 4. Mr. S.V. Dandwate, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, submits that amount awarded is just and proper. So far as contributory negligence is concerned, learned counsel submits that since deceased was not possessing a driving licence and also 3 persons were travelling on a motorbike and it was a head-on collision, therefore, learned Tribunal after due appreciation has rightly held the deceased equally liable for the accident. Learned counsel further submits that in the matter of Devi Singh Vs. Vikram Singh and Others, (2008) ACJ 393, Hon'ble Full Bench has not taken into consideration the situation wherein driver of a motorbike is driving with two pillion riders having no driving licence. 5. From perusal of record it is evident that to prove the case that in what circumstances the accident took place, appellants have examined Kushalsingh as AW 3 who had seen the accident from a distance of half km. This witness has admitted that it was a head-on collision and three persons were travelling on the motorbike. Undisputedly criminal case was registered against respondent No. 1 who was the driver of the offending jeep which was stolen. Exhs. P2 to P9 is the spot map. After investigation it was found that it was respondent No. 1 who was negligent in driving and the case was registered. It is true that only because three persons are travelling on a motorbike itself cannot be a ground to exonerate the insurance company on account of violation of terms of the policy unless and until it is proved that cause of accident was travelling on a motorbike by two pillion riders but in a case where the deceased was driving the motorbike who was also not possessing a driving licence, it cannot be said that there was no fault on the part of the deceased. This situation has also not been taken into consideration by the Full Bench of this court in the matter of Devi Singh Vs. This situation has also not been taken into consideration by the Full Bench of this court in the matter of Devi Singh Vs. Vikram Singh and Others, (2008) ACJ 393, It is also true that it was a head-on collision but at the same time in absence of any evidence adduced by respondent No. 4, this court finds that learned Tribunal committed error in holding the deceased equally liable for the accident. Keeping in view the spot which was a turning point, and also keeping in view that respondent No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle after stealing the same, this court feels that appropriate deduction ought to have been 25 per cent instead of 50 per cent. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, it appears that learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased on lower side which ought to have been Rs. 2,000 per month. Since deceased was aged 25 years, therefore, multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied instead of 16. In view of this, compensation is assessed as under: 6. After deducting 25 per cent on account of contributory negligence, appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 2,65,500. In view of this, appeal is allowed in part. The appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 2,65,500 after holding the deceased liable for the accident up to the extent of 25 per cent. The enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,82,000 (Rs. 2,65,500- Rs. 83,500) shall carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent from the date of application. The amount awarded shall be deposited by 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. 3 in the nearest nationalised bank in the area where the appellant No. 3 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. 3, which shall be opened by the appellant No. 3 from where appellant No. 3 can withdraw the amount as per her needs. However, on an application by the appellant No. 3 this condition could be modified by the learned Tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellant. With the aforesaid modification the appeal stands disposed of. However, on an application by the appellant No. 3 this condition could be modified by the learned Tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellant. With the aforesaid modification the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.