Judgment Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ.—This First Appeal is at the instance of an Insurance Company and is directed against an award dated 2nd January 2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main], Surendranagar, in MACP No. 141 of 2006, thereby disposing of the said application for compensation for the death of the predecessor-in-interest of the claimants by awarding a sum of Rs.24,71,200/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realisation. 2. Being dissatisfied, the Insurance Company has come up with the present appeal. 3. A Cross-Objection has also been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the Tribunal below has erroneously found 20% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and consequently reduced the amount of compensation fixed on the basis of income of the deceased by 20%. 4. It appears from the record that on 27th February 2006, the deceased, while driving a motor cycle, met with a head-on-collision with another motor cycle coming from the opposite direction, resulting in his death. The deceased was aged 45 years and was an Engineer. According to the last Income Tax Returns filed by the deceased for the period from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005, his annual income was Rs. 93,625/-. 5. The claim petition was opposed by the Insurance Company thereby alleging that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as it was the deceased who was driving the motor cycle on the wrong side of the road. 6. At the time of hearing, the driver of the offending vehicle gave evidence opposing the claim by appearing as a witness on behalf of the Insurance Company. On the other hand, on behalf of the claimants, evidence was led asserting that it was the offending vehicle which was coming from the wrong side. 7. The panchnama of the site of the accident prepared by the police authorities in connection with the criminal case initiated against the driver of the offending vehicle was brought on record, and it appears that the accident had occurred in the middle of the road where the offending motor cycle was lying whereas the motor cycle of the deceased was found lying on the left side of the road. 8. 8. The learned Tribunal below, on consideration of the materials on record, came to the conclusion that since there was a head-on collision, although the deceased was travelling on the correct side of the road, his contributory negligence in the accident should be treated to be 20%. The learned Tribunal below discarded the evidence given by the Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company as he had not seen the accident, and, at the same time, was appointed by the Insurance Company itself. 9. As regards the income of the victim, although he was an Income Tax Assessee and in his last Return the income was shown to be Rs. 93,625/-, the Tribunal held that in that year, the deceased claimed rebate of Rs. 24,475/- for LIC premium and has also paid professional tax of Rs. 1300/- and these were required to be added to the annual income, and thus, the annual income of the deceased would be Rs. 1,19,300/-, rounded off to Rs. 1,20,000/-. The Tribunal further held that payment of LIC premium of Rs. 2000/- a month is possible only when a person has monthly income of about Rs. 25,000/- and considering purchase of an immovable property in 2004, the Tribunal held that the annual income would be Rs. 3,00,000/-, i.e. Rs. 25,000/- per mensem. The Tribunal below, thereafter, applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 , held that 1/4th should be deducted towards personal expenses and by application of the multiplier of 14, held that the applicants should be entitled to Rs. 30,24,000/- for future loss of income [18000 X 12 X 14]. The Tribunal below further awarded Rs. 25,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses and thus, arrived at the figure of Rs. 30,89,000/-. Thereafter, the Tribunal below deducted a sum of Rs. 6,17,800/- towards 20% contributory negligence of the deceased and consequently, came to the figure of Rs. 24,71,200/-. 10. Heard Mr. Shelat, learned advocate appearing for the appellants and Mr. Kirtidev Dave and Mr. Rahul Dave for the respondents. 11. 30,89,000/-. Thereafter, the Tribunal below deducted a sum of Rs. 6,17,800/- towards 20% contributory negligence of the deceased and consequently, came to the figure of Rs. 24,71,200/-. 10. Heard Mr. Shelat, learned advocate appearing for the appellants and Mr. Kirtidev Dave and Mr. Rahul Dave for the respondents. 11. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find that the learned Tribunal below rightly disbelieved the report of the Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company as the said Investigator was not an eyewitness, and, at the same time, was appointed by the Insurance Company. On the other hand, the panchnama of the scene of the accident was prepared by the police authorities in the course of their official duty. Moreover, there is no dispute that the motor cycle of the deceased was found on the left side of the road and that of the opponent was found on the middle of the road. 12. In such circumstances, the accident being a head-on-collision, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal below of contributory negligence of 20% on the part of the deceased. 13. As regards the income of the victim, we are, however, unable to approve the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal. When the deceased in his last Income Tax Return has himself shown his annual income from business to be Rs. 93,625/-, there was no justification of adding the figures of LIC premium and professional tax to the annual income shown in the Income Tax Return and arriving at a conclusion that the annual income should be treated to be Rs. 1,20,000/-. There was also no justification in arriving at the figure of monthly income of Rs. 25,000/- for the reasons and grounds assigned by the Tribunal below in its award. 14. As stated above, the Income Tax Return filed by the deceased for the period from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005 shows his annual income at Rs. 93,625/-. Adding thereto Rs. 28,087/- being 30% towards future prospective income of the deceased following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma [supra], the annual prospective income of the deceased would be Rs. 1,21,712/-, rounded off to Rs. 1,20,000/-. Deducting 1/4th therefrom towards the personal expenses, the annual dependency loss should be Rs. 90,000/-. Adding thereto Rs. 28,087/- being 30% towards future prospective income of the deceased following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma [supra], the annual prospective income of the deceased would be Rs. 1,21,712/-, rounded off to Rs. 1,20,000/-. Deducting 1/4th therefrom towards the personal expenses, the annual dependency loss should be Rs. 90,000/-. Applying thereto a multiplier of 14 as rightly awarded by the Tribunal, the gross amount under the head of dependency loss would be Rs. 12,60,000/-. We, however, do not disturb the award of Rs. 25,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses. 15. Adding these conventional amounts to the amount awarded under the head of dependency loss, the total amount of compensation would thus be Rs. 13,25,000/-. Deducting therefrom Rs. 2,65,000/- towards 20% contributory negligence of the deceased, the net amount of compensation should be Rs. 10,60,000/-. We, thus, modify the award as under: Rs.12,60,000-00 Dependency loss [Rs.1,20,000/- less 1/4th = 90,000 X 14] Rs. 25,000-00 Loss of consortium Rs. 30,000-00 Loss of estate Rs. 10,000-00 funeral expenses Rs.13,25,000-00 Gross compensation Rs. 2,65,000-00 LESS being 20% negligence of the deceased Rs.10,60,000-00 Net compensation 16. The award of interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realisation is quite reasonable and we do not find any reason to interfere. 17. The award is accordingly modified to Rs. 10,60,000-00 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realisation. 18. It appears from the order dated 10th September 2012 passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 10284 of 2012 that the Insurance Company has deposited only Rs. 10,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company shall deposit before the Tribunal the remaining principal amount of Rs. 60,000/- as well as interest on Rs. 10,60,000/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of deposit of the balance amount pursuant to this order and costs as ordered by the Tribunal within two months from today. 60,000/- as well as interest on Rs. 10,60,000/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of deposit of the balance amount pursuant to this order and costs as ordered by the Tribunal within two months from today. We do not disturb the ratio of apportionment, disbursement and investment directions contained in the award and upon deposit of the remaining amount by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal, the modified award be disbursed to the claimants in terms of the apportionment, disbursement and investment directions contained in the impugned award. 19. The appeal is partly allowed and the Cross-Objection is dismissed. In the facts of the case, there shall be, however, no order as to costs in both the matters. 20. Registry is directed to forthwith return the Record and Proceedings to the Tribunal.