JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is preferred by the appellants seeking enhancement of compensation. Claim petition was filed for the accidental death of Sarfoodin @ Babu Bahi, who died in a road accident involving the motorcycle insured with the respondent-insurance company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that Tribunal was wholly unjustified in holding deceased-Sarfoodin himself responsible for contributory negligence to the extent of 25% but there is no evidence to show that he was negligent and evidence proved that it was motorcycle rider, who hit Sarfoodin while he was walking on the road. Tribunal has wrongly held that deceased-Sarfoodin did not take proper care while crossing the road. Learned counsel in this connection referred to the findings of the Tribunal on Issues No.4 and 5 and argued that statement of AW2 Sirajuddin, who lodged the FIR has not been given much credence observing that he was an eye-witness and that in the FIR he has stated that he had disclosed in the manner, which was told to him by others. On that basis, Tribunal believed that if the deceased would have been careful in crossing the road, the accident would have been avoided. Learned counsel also argued that there were originally seven dependents when the suit was filed but subsequently during pendency of the claim petition, Mst.Nattu, who then was aged 65 years died. Her death had occurred on account of shock received by her due to untimely death of her son deceased Sarfoodin. As per the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another : (2009) 6 SCC 121 , in view of fact that there were more than six dependents, ⅕th deductions should have been made, whereas the Tribunal deducted ⅓th. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company has opposed the appeal and argued that there was no eye-witness to the accident to prove that motorcyclist was solely negligent for the accident and if the deceased was crossing the road, he was expected to be more careful and in that process if the accident had taken place and he was hit by the motorcycle, the motorcyclist cannot be held solely responsible. As regards deductions of ⅕th, learned counsel submitted that number of claimants as on the date of passing of the award, may be taken into account for the purpose of deduction and not the number of claimants at the time of accidental death or on the date of filing of the claim petition, learned counsel therefore submitted that if claimants are reduced from seven to six, deduction for own expenses of the deceased would be then 1/4th and not ⅕th as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma supra. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 5. Although, it is true that there is no eye-witness of the accident but at the same time, it is also undeniable that deceased died in road accident and the motorcycle that hit the deceased leading to his death was insured with the respondent insurance company. The fact that brother of the deceased had lodged FIR but was not an eye-witness, does not make much difference because there is no other eye-witness in rebuttal to disprove what has been asserted by the claimants and no contrary evidence has been produced by the insurance company either. In cases of accident, usually the eye-witness may not be available but absence of direct evidence by itself cannot be a basis for the Tribunal to draw an inference to hold that had the deceased been more careful and he could have avoided accident and thereby saved his life. Such inference cannot be further relied to hold him guilty of contributory negligence. This finding can be sustained only on the basis of evidence that may be led by the insurance company or the non-claimant in rebuttal, whereas there is no such rebuttal in the present case. Finding recorded in fact was based on the own inferences drawn by the Tribunal out of the evidence adduced by the claimants. In absence of such evidence, finding of contributory negligence on the part of deceased to the extent of 25% cannot be sustained. 6. Finding recorded in fact was based on the own inferences drawn by the Tribunal out of the evidence adduced by the claimants. In absence of such evidence, finding of contributory negligence on the part of deceased to the extent of 25% cannot be sustained. 6. Adverting now to the argument as to whether seven claimants should be considered as per the originally filed claim petition or only six claimants should be considered for the purpose of deduction of own expenses of deceased because one of them died during the pendency of the claim petition and claim petition was belatedly decided vide award dated 4/11/2004. Admittedly, in this case, accident took place on 26/10/2000 but nevertheless the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and this Court and even the Supreme Court, while deciding the claim petitions have been invariably awarding interest to the claimants on the award of compensation from the date of filing claim petition. This is because the conclusion of the proceedings in claim petitions is invariably delayed for various reasons including reasons of workload with the Tribunals and the Courts. Here in the present case, when original claim petition was filed, there were seven claimants and the fact that mother of the deceased, who died due to shock of accidental death of her son, also cannot be ignored. In the circumstances, accepting number of dependents to be seven, deductions of ⅕th should be made on the basis of number of claimants as on the date of filing of the claim petition and not on the basis of number of claimants available on the date of passing of the award. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk dated 4/11/2004 is modified in terms that instead of deduction of ⅓rd, deductions of ⅕th should have been made. The computation is made, as under:- (a) 1800x12 = 21,600/- (b) 21600x ⅕%. = Rs. 17,280/- (21600-4320) (c) 17280x16 = Rs. 2,76,480/- (d) Rs. 20,000/- awarded on other non-pecuniary heads is maintained. (e) 276480+20000. = 2,96,480/- 8. Thus, the compensation of Rs. 2,30,400/- is enhanced to Rs. 2,96,480/-. The appellants shall be entitled to interest @7.5% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing claim petition. The record be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******