JUDGMENT Ms. Anita Chaudhry, J.: - Both the appeals have arisen out of the award dated 01.12.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (herein-after referred to as the Tribunal). The claimants in both the appeals were aggrieved with the award and are seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. An accident occurred on 13.12.1998 which led to the death of Kulbir Singh and Rajinder Singh, giving rise to three claim petitions. One claim petition was filed by Kartar Kaur, widow of Rajinder Singh. Two claim petitions were filed claiming compensation for death of Kulbir Singh by the mother of Kulbir Singh and widow of Kulbir. All the three claim petitions were tried together. 3. The facts may now be detailed. Kulbir Singh along with Rajinder Singh on the pillion was proceeding on a scooter from Patiala to Chuharpur Khurd, when a bus bearing registration no.PB-II-E/9603 came from the opposite side and dashed against the scooter, leading to the death of both the occupants of the scooter. 4. The respondents filed a joint written statement pleading that no accident had taken place with the bus and when the bus had reached near the place of accident, Harmail Singh-respondent no.3, driver of the bus noticed that the occupants who were coming on the scooter from opposite direction, were under the influence of liquor and the scooter was being driven in negligent manner and at a high speed and the scooter driver tried to overtake the motorcycle and in that process the scooter struck against the back wheel of the motorcycle and riders fell on the road. On seeing this accident, respondent no.3 stopped the bus. It was claimed that the bus did not touch any of the victims. 5. The Tribunal was called upon to decide as to whether Rajinder Singh and Kulbir Singh had died in the motor accident caused by negligence driving of respondent no.3. 6. The Tribunal examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that it was a head on collision and a case of contributory negligence. 7. While working out the compensation for the death of Rajinder Singh, it was found that he was a mason. There was discrepancy with respect to his age and his age was taken as 68. The income was assessed as that of a labourer @ Rs.3,000/- per month and the compensation was worked out at Rs.1,82,200/-. 8. 7. While working out the compensation for the death of Rajinder Singh, it was found that he was a mason. There was discrepancy with respect to his age and his age was taken as 68. The income was assessed as that of a labourer @ Rs.3,000/- per month and the compensation was worked out at Rs.1,82,200/-. 8. As regards Kulbir Singh, his income was taken @ Rs.3,750/- per month. His age was taken to be 25/26 years as contradictory statements were made by Kartar Kaur and Kulwinder Kaur with respect to the age. The age indicated in the postmortem report was 25/26 and the age was taken to be 25 but a multiplier of 16 was applied and the compensation was calculated @ Rs.1,27,500/-. Fifty percent of the amount was ordered to be paid by the respondents. 9. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants have urged that the Tribunal had apportioned the liability as it was of the view that it was a case of contributory negligence when there was no plea in the written statement and the finding is on mere assumptions that the road was wide and the witness had said that it was a head on collision. It was urged that head of collision would not mean that the scooter driver was coming on the middle of the road and it struck against the bus and the finding be modified. It was urged that the compensation that was awarded, was not properly calculated and the age of Kulbir Singh was taken as 25 years and the multiplier should have been 18. It was urged that an addition of 50% should have been made in his income and no amount was awarded for loss of love and affection, consortium and very less amount was granted for funeral expenses. 11. It was urged that the Tribunal had wrongly taken the age of Rajinder as 68 and the statement has been misread and in the postmortem report the age recorded is 55 years and appropriate multiplier should be applied to recalculate the compensation after adding an amount towards future prospects besides enhanced compensation for love and affection, consortium and funeral expenses. 12. 12. The argument put forth on behalf of the respondents was that the road was wide enough for two vehicles to pass easily and the Tribunal had gone through the statements and had rightly arrived at the conclusion that both the drivers were at fault and Harmail Singh had admitted that it was a head on collision. It was urged that it had been pleaded in the written statement that the scooter driver was overtaking the motorcycle and they got entangled with the back wheel of the motorcycle and both the occupants of the scooter fell down and the bus did not touch any of the victims. 13. A perusal of the pleadings show that no plea of contradictory negligence has been raised by the respondents. The written statement was filed on behalf of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation. No separate written statement was filed by respondent no.3-Harmail Singh. Without there being any plea of contradictory negligence, the Tribunal could not have assumed that it was a case of contradictory negligence. On merely referring to the width of the road, the Tribunal assumed that since the road was sufficiently wide, therefore, the scooter had come to the middle of the road and both the drivers were at fault. There is no admission by any witness that the scooter driver had come to the middle of the road. Harmail Singh had merely stated that both the vehicles were on the metalled road when the accident took place. There was no plea of contributory negligence. No issue had been framed. No evidence was led. In fact the plea was that the bus did not touch the victim. The finding has to be set aside. 14. The compensation as it is against record will have to be recalculated as no addition was made towards future prospects. In Rajesh and others Vs. No issue had been framed. No evidence was led. In fact the plea was that the bus did not touch the victim. The finding has to be set aside. 14. The compensation as it is against record will have to be recalculated as no addition was made towards future prospects. In Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir and others, [2013(4) Law Herald (SC) 3006 : 2013(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2274 (SC)] : 2013(3) RCR (Civil) 170, the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that there must be addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects and when the victim is below the age of 40, the addition must be 50% For the deceased who are in the age group of 40 to 50 years, the addition should be 30%, while in the age group of 50 to 60, there should be an addition of 15% so as to make the compensation equitable, fair and reasonable. 15. Taking the case of Kulbir first, there was a dispute relating to his age. According to Kulwinder Kaur, Kulbir was 22 years old whereas Jarnail Kaur had stated that he was 30 years old at the time of accident. In the postmortem report, the age was mentioned was 25/26 years. The Tribunal had taken the age to be 25 years but it had applied the multiplier of 16. As per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107] : 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, when the victim is in the age group of 21 to 25, the multiplier applicable would be 18. 16. The income of Kulbir was assessed at Rs.3750/- per month. If an addition of 50% is made, the total income would come to Rs.5625/-. After deducting 1/3rd, the amount available for the family would be Rs.3750/- and the annual contribution would come to Rs.45,000/-. Applying the multiplier of 18, the compensation would work out to be Rs.8,10,000/-. The accident in this case had taken place in 1998. Keeping the year of accident into consideration, no further amount can be added towards loss of consortium. The Tribunal had already awarded Rs.25,000/-. Some increase has to be made with respect to the funeral expenses for that an addition of Rs.10,000/- is made. Rs.25,000/- is added for loss of love and affection. The total of this comes to Rs.8,45,000/-. Keeping the year of accident into consideration, no further amount can be added towards loss of consortium. The Tribunal had already awarded Rs.25,000/-. Some increase has to be made with respect to the funeral expenses for that an addition of Rs.10,000/- is made. Rs.25,000/- is added for loss of love and affection. The total of this comes to Rs.8,45,000/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal shall be deducted and the remaining amount shall be paid by the respondents which will bear interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this appeal till realization. 17. Now coming to the case of Rajinder, there was a dispute with respect to his age. Kartar Kaur had given the age of Rajinder as 55 years. When she stepped into the witness box, she gave her age as 55 years. In the cross-examination, she had stated that her husband was 5 years elder to her. Considering the postmortem report and the statement, Rajinder could not have been 70. The claimant had given her age as 55 years. At the most, the age could have been taken to be 60. If the age of the deceased is taken at 60 years, no addition towards future prospects is to be made but the multiplier applicable would be 9. If the income is taken to be Rs.3750/- per month and 1/3rd is deducted, the income available for family would be Rs.2500/- per month. The annual contribution would come to Rs.30,000/- and if the multiplier of 9 is applied, the compensation would work out to Rs.2,70,000/-. To this, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is added towards funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/- is added towards loss of consortium. The total of this comes to Rs.3,05,000/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal shall be deducted and the remaining amount shall be paid to appellant Kartar Kaur with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal which is 16.08.2001. Both the appeals are partly allowed. Lower court record be sent back. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————