JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J.: - This appeal emanates from the award dated 10.1.2011 of the tribunal at Kaithal whereby appellants were granted a compensation of Rs.3,16,000/- on account of death of one Krishan Kumar in the accident which occurred on 1.11.2009. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased was 26 years of age at the time of his death. Tribunal has not granted adequate compensation to the claimants. He further submits that tribunal has erred in deducting 50% of the amount on account of contributory negligence of the deceased. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that adequate compensation has been granted by the tribunal and liability has rightly been fastened after taking into account facts and circumstances of the case. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. 5. It appears that accident took place on 1.11.2009 in which Krishan Kumar died. The appellants preferred a claim petition before the tribunal at Kaithal. The tribunal came to the conclusion that accident was caused on account of composite negligence of the deceased Krishan Kumar and respondent No.1. It assessed notional income of deceased as Rs.4000/- per month. Following ratio of the judgment reported as Sarla Verma Vs. DTC, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : 2009 ACJ 1298, it deducted 1/4th of the amount as personal expenses of the deceased and assessed monthly dependency as Rs.3000/- i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum. Multiplier of 17 was applied and compensation of Rs.6,12,000/- was assessed. Another sum of Rs.20,000/- was assessed for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. A total compensation of Rs.6,32,000/- was assessed. After deducting 50% amount on account of contributory negligence of the deceased, the appellants were held entitled to compensation of Rs.3,16,000/-. In my considered view, the award of the tribunal does not call for any interference as compensation has been granted after taking all the factors into consideration. The dependency has been correctly assessed and multiplier of 17 has also been correctly applied. 6. Another arguments raised on behalf of the appellants is that tribunal has erred in deducting 50% of the amount on account of contributory negligence of the deceased. I, however, find no merit in this plea. The dependency has been correctly assessed and multiplier of 17 has also been correctly applied. 6. Another arguments raised on behalf of the appellants is that tribunal has erred in deducting 50% of the amount on account of contributory negligence of the deceased. I, however, find no merit in this plea. Eye-witness PW1 admitted in his cross-examination that it was a case of head on collision between motor cycle and the car. There was no mention that car was on wrong side of the road. It being a head on collision in the middle of the road, tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that deceased has contributed to the accident in the ratio of 50:50. Besides, in the version given in the FIR, it was nowhere stated that car was on the wrong side of the road. Thus, 50% amount has rightly been deducted out of the total compensation awarded, keeping in view contributory negligence of deceased to the extent of 50%. There is no merit in the instant appeal. Same is hereby dismissed. 7. Since appeal is dismissed on merit, application under section 5 of the Limitation Act does not survive.