JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 05.01.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,79,200/- as compensation for the death of one Moti Ram. 2. The facts in brief are that the claimants filed an application for compensation ('the application'), inter alia, with the averments that on 15.01.1996 on Hanumangarh-Suratgarh road at Lakhuvali at around 09:30 AM the deceased was travelling in a tractor trolley, which was filled with raw cotton, and when the tractor trolley reached Pilibanga main road, the wheel of the trolley came out and the Moti Ram fell down on the road, at the same time, the bus being RJ14-P-1599, which was being driven rashly and negligently by one Ram Ji Lal also reached the same spot and crushed Moti Ram to death; the claimants claimed that2 the deceased was aged 40 years and was earning Rs. 1800/- per month. 3. The appellant filed its reply to the application and disputed the averments made in the application; it was submitted that no accident took place from the vehicle of the Corporation and in fact the deceased died on account of receiving injuries immediately on his falling down from the tractor. 4. The Tribunal, after evidence was led by the parties, came to be conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the Corporation and on coming to the conclusion that deceased was aged 40 years and was earning Rs. 1800/- per month after applying a multiplier of 18 awarded compensation of Rs. 2,59,200/- towards loss of income and Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of love and affection and consortium to the claimants and, as such, awarded total sum of Rs. 2,79,200/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing application i.e. 04.07.1996. 5. Despite service, no one has appeared on behalf of the claimants to oppose the appeal. 6. This Court by order dated 10.03.2000 stayed the execution of the award other than the amount deposited by the appellant Corporation under Section 140 and proviso to Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act'). 7. 5. Despite service, no one has appeared on behalf of the claimants to oppose the appeal. 6. This Court by order dated 10.03.2000 stayed the execution of the award other than the amount deposited by the appellant Corporation under Section 140 and proviso to Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act'). 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal fell in error in coming to the conclusion that the driver of the appellant Corporation was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and that Moti Ram died on account of accident from the said vehicle. It was submitted that from postmortem report, it is apparent that nature of injuries is not such which could be attributed to any accident from the bus and it is only on account of the fact that deceased fell down from the trolley, which was filled with raw cotton, he died and merely because the vehicle of the Corporation was passing from the said road the said vehicle has been involved. It was further submitted that in any case the present case is a case of contributory negligence and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is not proper. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 9. It is not in dispute that the bus belonging to the Corporation was at the site of accident and even after when the Police reached the site after FIR was lodged the vehicle was still available at the site, which is clear from the site inspection report. It is a common phenomena that it is only when a vehicle is involved in the accident that the said vehicle would remain stationed at the site even after passage of so much of time otherwise the passerby does not stay back. Further, the allegation of the witnesses appearing on behalf of the claimants was that after the accident occurred the driver of the bus ran away from the site. Driver himself has admitted in his statement that there are instructions from the Corporation that there would be a brake down at the site of accident itself of the vehicle. 10. In view of the above circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the rash and negligent driving by the vehicle of the Corporation. 11. 10. In view of the above circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the rash and negligent driving by the vehicle of the Corporation. 11. So far as the issue relating to contributory negligence is4 concerned, the deceased was travelling on the trolley filled with goods and that also with raw cotton, which by its very nature is quite unstable. The wheel of the trolley came out and it is only because the deceased was travelling in the trolley with the goods that he fell down and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it can very well be concluded that the deceased also contributed in the accident and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said contribution is assessed at 25%. 12. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, it is true that after coming to the conclusion that the deceased was aged 40 yeas, and assessing his income at Rs. 1800/- per month, the Tribunal has employed multiplier of 18 which is contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009 (6) SCC 121 , however, it is also to be noticed that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount on account of future prospects, which also, the claimants were entitled in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., 2013 ACJ 1403 . 13. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above two judgments Sarla Verma and Rajesh (supra), the amount of compensation shall be 1560x12x15=2,80,800/- which amount is almost equivalent to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 14. However, after deducting 25% from the said amount on account of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the award would be Rs. 2,10,600/- and adding a sum of5 Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of love and affection awarded by the Tribunal, the final award would be Rs. 2,30,600/-. The Tribunal had awarded interest @ 12% per annum. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the same is reduced to 9% from the date of application i.e. 04.07.1996. 15. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. 20,000/- towards loss of love and affection awarded by the Tribunal, the final award would be Rs. 2,30,600/-. The Tribunal had awarded interest @ 12% per annum. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the same is reduced to 9% from the date of application i.e. 04.07.1996. 15. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The award impugned passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,30,600/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing application i.e. 04.07.1996. After adjusting the amount deposited by the appellant Corporation under Section 140 and proviso to Section 173(1) of the Act, the rest of the amount be paid to the claimants within a period of two months in terms of the award. No costs.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******