RAFIQ, J.—Claimants have preferred this appeal against award dated 29.05.2002 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal, Jaipur, in MAC Case No.728/1996, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal. Under impugned award, learned Tribunal held the deceased contributory negligent to the extent of 75% for the accident and accordingly awarded compensation of Rs.68,800/- to claimants. 2. Jasvender Singh, husband of appellant no.1 and father of appellant no.2, died in a road accident took place on 14.12.1995 on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of offending Truck No.ATJ-1535. 3. Contention of learned counsel for appellants is that compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is towards lower side and it may be suitably enhanced. Learned Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased at Rs.70/- per day. Deceased was a scooter mechanic and earning Rs.5000/- per month. Learned Tribunal has also erred in holding deceased contributory negligent for the accident to the extent of 75% whereas from evidence came on record it is clear that driver of offending Truck was fully liable for the accident. 4. On hearing learned counsel for appellants and perusing material on record, I am of the view that learned Tribunal has rightly held the deceased liable contributory negligent for accident to the extent of 75%. From statements of witnesses, it is clear that jeep, being driven by deceased, was overtaking the trucks going ahead of it and certainly its speed was much more than those trucks which were being overtaken by it, therefore it cannot be said that speed of the jeep was 20-25 kilometer per hour. Allegation that offending truck was being driven at a high speed of 100-125 kilometer per hour, cannot be accepted because a truck being driven at a given speed, then on collusion it would have dragged back the jeep forcefully at a certain distance whereas from the documentary evidence it does not appear to be so. From the damage caused to both the vehicles, it is clear that accident has taken place because both the vehicles were in high speed. The jeep was overtaking the vehicles going ahead of it and in this process jeep driver did not take care of the offending truck coming from opposite side. The jeep firstly hit the tractor and got imbalanced and thereafter dashed against the truck. Thus, the jeep driver was more negligent for accident. The jeep was overtaking the vehicles going ahead of it and in this process jeep driver did not take care of the offending truck coming from opposite side. The jeep firstly hit the tractor and got imbalanced and thereafter dashed against the truck. Thus, the jeep driver was more negligent for accident. In these circumstances, learned Tribunal was right in holding 75% contributory negligence of jeep driver (deceased). 5. Notified minimum wages of a skilled labour at the relevant time was Rs.34/- per day whereas learned Tribunal has accepted income of deceased at Rs.70/-, which is double than the notified minimum wages. Learned Tribunal has adopted multiplier of 17 whereas, in view of ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another – (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), it should have applied multiplier of 16 only. In the year 1995, when accident took place, the rupee carried greater value whereas much devaluation has taken place thereafter. By these standards, compensation of Rs.68,800/- cannot be said towards lower side. 6. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and same is hereby dismissed.