ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 29.11.2011 passed by XVI MACT, Indore in claim case No. 30/2010 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was allowed and compensation of Rs. 4,22,580/- was assessed on account of death of one Jitendra, out of which 50% was deducted on account of contributory negligence and a sum of Rs. 2,11,290/- was awarded, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that appellant filed a claim petition alleging that on 14.1.2010, one Sneh @ Jitendra was going on a motorbike bearing registration No. MP09 MJ 9066 along with pillion rider Rahul. It was alleged that said motorbike met with accident with a truck bearing registration No. MP13 MF 5397 which was being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently and insured with respondent No. 2. It was alleged that in the said accident, Jitendra sustained grievous injuries. He was hospitalised at Ahmedabad where he passed away on 16.1.2010. It was prayed that claim petition be allowed and compensation be awarded. The claim petition was contested by respondent No. 1 on various grounds including on the ground that accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of deceased himself, therefore no compensation can be awarded to the appellant. It was prayed that claim petition be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal assessed the income of deceased @ Rs. 5,000/- per month and after deducting half of the amount towards personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 13 and assessed the compensation as Rs. 4,22,580/- and after holding the deceased equally liable for the accident, deducted 50%, against which the present appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that impugned award is illegal and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that income assessed and also the multiplier applied is on lower side. It is submitted that Rahul who was eye witness was examined to explain in what circumstances the accident took place. It is further submitted that since criminal case was registered against the respondent No. 1, therefore learned Tribunal was not justified in holding that deceased was equally liable for the accident. It is submitted that Rahul who was eye witness was examined to explain in what circumstances the accident took place. It is further submitted that since criminal case was registered against the respondent No. 1, therefore learned Tribunal was not justified in holding that deceased was equally liable for the accident. It is submitted that for comming to the conclusion that deceased was equally liable for the accident, learned Tribunal has taken into consideration that accident took place on the middle of the road and also that deceased was under intoxication. It is submitted that only because the accident took place on the middle of the road, it cannot be said that deceased was equally liable for the accident. It is submitted that only on the basis of statement of investigator, it cannot be said that because the deceased was under intoxication, therefore accident occurred. It is submitted that appeal be allowed, amount be enhanced and findings regarding deduction of 50% on account of contributory negligence be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 supports the award and submits that after due appreciation of evidence learned Tribunal has found that deceased was equally liable for the accident. It is submitted that findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based on due appreciation of evidence which requires no interference. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 also supported the contention raised by the respondent No. 1. It is submitted that appeal be dismissed. 6. From perusal of record, it appears that accident is of the year 2010, therefore income assessed @ Rs. 5,000/- per month appears to be just and proper. Deduction of half of the amount towards personal expenses is also appropriate as deceased was bachelor. Similarly application of multiplier of 13 is just and proper. It is true that initially the criminal case was registered against the deceased and also against respondent No. 1 but because of death of Jitendra, criminal case was dropped against him. Rahul Verma and respondent No. 1 who were the eye witnesses, both of them came in witness box to explain the circumstances in which the accident occurred. Only on the basis that accident took place in the middle of road, it cannot be said that deceased was equally liable for the accident. Rahul Verma and respondent No. 1 who were the eye witnesses, both of them came in witness box to explain the circumstances in which the accident occurred. Only on the basis that accident took place in the middle of road, it cannot be said that deceased was equally liable for the accident. So far as holding the deceased equally liable for the accident as deceased was in a drunken condition, section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under :- Whoever, while driving, or attempting to drive, a motor vehicle- (a) has, in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg. Per 100 ml of blood detected in a test by a breath analyser, or, (b) is under this influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle, shall be punishable for the first offending with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to Rs. 2,000/-, or with both, and for a second or subsequent offence, if committed within three years of the commision of the previous similar offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extent to Rs. 3,000/-. 7. Since there is no medical report of the deceased as he was survived after the accident for 2 days to the effect that in his blood, alcohol was exceeding 30 mgs. Per 100 ml. Of blood detected in a test by a breathe analyser, therefore in view of this Court, learned Tribunal was not justified in holding the deceased equally liable for the accident. However, since the accident has occurred on the middle of the road and it was a head-on collision, therefore the percentage of negligence on the part of deceased is assessed as 25% instead of 50%. In view of this, appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 3,17,435/- instead of Rs. 2,11,290/-. The enhanced amount of Rs. 1,06,145/- shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of application. The amount awarded shall be deposited by the Insurance Company with the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal is directed to invest 80% of the said amount on long term fixed deposit in the name of appellant No. 1 with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance. The amount awarded shall be deposited by the Insurance Company with the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal is directed to invest 80% of the said amount on long term fixed deposit in the name of appellant No. 1 with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance. Interest on the said amount shall be credited on monthly basis in S.B. Account of appellant No. 1 from where the amount can be withdrawn as per needs. However, on an application by the appellant No. 1, this condition could be modified by the learned Tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellant No.1. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal stands disposed of.