JUDGMENT 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Case No.83/2006 dated 10.7.2006 by which, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.92,500/­ to the present appellant as compensation amount for death of his son in an accident that took place on 3.6.2001. 2. According to the appellant, her son Khelendra was going from Indore to Chapra road on his motorcycle. In Chapra, in front of Patidar Tire Remold Factory, a truck bearing registration No.C.I.F.­ 1050 was parked by respondent No.2 in the middle of the road. Cement pipes were loaded on the truck. There was no indication behind the truck, no red light was on and due to this, the deceased could not see the parked truck and collided from behind. Due to impact of collision, the deceased sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. At the time of his death, his monthly income was Rs.5,000/­ per month and, therefore, before the Tribunal, an application under section 161 of Motor Vehicle Act was filed for awarding compensation amount of Rs.20,00,000/­. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed reply of the application and denied that any accident took place by the vehicle as asserted by the present appellant in the application. The respondent No.3, Insurance Company, filed reply stating therein that the accident was not caused due to the negligence of the driver of the truck but, it was due to the negligent driving by the deceased himself, who was not careful enough while driving the motorcycle. Respondent No.4 –Meena bai is the wife of the deceased. After service of notice on her, she remained absent before the Tribunal and accordingly, the case proceeded ex parte against her. 4. After recording the evidence by both the parties and after hearing both the parties, learned Tribunal passed the impugned award by which, it was held that the deceased was 50% liable for contributory negligence. The dependency of the present appellant was assessed to be Rs.1,000/­ while, the total annual income was assessed to be Rs.36,000/­ out of Rs.3000/­ per month, which was the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal deducted 1/3 amount for his own expenses and 1/3 amount for expenses of the wife, who remained exparte before the Tribunal and then assessed the amount of the claim as Rs.78,000/­. The Tribunal deducted 1/3 amount for his own expenses and 1/3 amount for expenses of the wife, who remained exparte before the Tribunal and then assessed the amount of the claim as Rs.78,000/­. After adding Rs.14,500/­ on other counts like funeral expenses, loss of love and affection and mental agony, the Tribunal awarded total amount of Rs.92,500/­. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the present appeal is filed by the appellant on the ground that there was 100% negligence of the truck driver as, the truck was parked on the tarred portion in the middle of the road and there was no indication by red light or by any cloth to caution the vehicle coming from behind. It was also the ground for appeal that the income assessed was very low as, he was earning Rs.5,000/­ per month and also the multiplier of 13 used by the Tribunal was on the lower side and the proper multiplier looking to the age of the deceased should have been 16. 6. The Insurance Company also filed a cross objection stating that the accident was caused due to 100% negligence of the deceased and, therefore, the appellant is not liable for any amount. 7. Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined herself and in the statement given on affidavit, she stated that at the time of his son's death, his income was Rs.5,000/­ per month as, he was selling milk. The deceased had passed Higher Secondary School Certificate Exam and, therefore, he was earning the amount on his own. Apart from the appellant, Praveen Son of Ramprasad, brother of the deceased was also examined and 2 eye witnesses namely ­ Jassu Son of Laxminarayan Rathore and Asgar Ali Son of Chhote Kha, who were coming on their motorcycle just 15 to 20 feet behind the deceased, were also examined. Apart from them, Mukesh was also examined, who was cleaner of the truck and at the time of the incident, he was eating food in the cabin. For deciding the question of negligence, statements of Jassu AW­3, Asgar AW­4 and Mukesh AW­7 are important. They all said that the truck was parked in the middle of the road. Specially, Mukesh AW­7, who was cleaner of the truck supported the contention of the appellant that the truck was parked in the middle of the road. For deciding the question of negligence, statements of Jassu AW­3, Asgar AW­4 and Mukesh AW­7 are important. They all said that the truck was parked in the middle of the road. Specially, Mukesh AW­7, who was cleaner of the truck supported the contention of the appellant that the truck was parked in the middle of the road. No other evidence like site map prepared by the police is produced by both the parties. 8. In such situation, after going through the statements of these three witnesses, it is clear that the truck was parked in the middle of the road. As stated earlier, there is no evidence in rebuttal adduced by the insurance company and in such a situation, finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was himself negligent as he could have seen the parked truck had he been careful enough, does not appear to be proper and it is held that the accident took place due to the negligence of the respondent No.2, who parked the vehicle in the middle of the road. 9. Coming to the quantum of the compensation, the Tribunal assessed income of the deceased @ Rs.3,000/­ per month. No documentary evidence in respect of his income or that he was running a business of selling milk is filed by the appellant and in such a situation, the assessment of the Tribunal in respect of income of the deceased in the year 2001 when, the accident took place, appears to be proper. However, the Tribunal deducted 1/3 amount as expenditures on the deceased himself and 1/3 amount for his wife and assessed dependency of the present appellant as Rs.1000/­, which do not appear to be proper as, it is apparent that prior to his death, the deceased, his wife respondent No.4 and the present appellant were living together. However, prior to filing of the application by the appellant before the Tribunal, respondent No.4 wife of the deceased remarried another person and left house of the appellant. She was served a notice and still she chose to remain absent before the Tribunal and the case proceeded ex parte against her and in such situation, household is still maintained by the present appellant and, therefore, deducting the amount for his wife is not proper at this stage. Accordingly, dependency should be taken as Rs.2,000/­ per month. 10. She was served a notice and still she chose to remain absent before the Tribunal and the case proceeded ex parte against her and in such situation, household is still maintained by the present appellant and, therefore, deducting the amount for his wife is not proper at this stage. Accordingly, dependency should be taken as Rs.2,000/­ per month. 10. Coming to the question of multiplier according to the age of the deceased, who was 33 years of age as, his date of birth is stated to be 14.9.1968 according to Ex.P­19, which is the marksheet of Higher Secondary School Examination, the multiplier should have been 16 and not 13. Accordingly, by applying the multiplier of 16, the amount should be calculated as 2000×12×16=3,84,000/­ adding to it, the amount of funeral expenses, which appear on the lower side even in the year 2001 and should be raised to Rs.5,000/­, and the amount awarded by the Tribunal on other counts the total amount comes to Rs.4,01,500/­ 11. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. It is directed that :­ (i) The respondents No.1 to 3 shall pay amount of Rs.4,01,500/­ to the appellant. (ii) On this amount, from the date of filing of the application i.e. 27.9.2003, the respondents No.1 to 3 shall pay 6% simple interest per annum. (iii) The amount already paid to the appellant shall be adjusted in the above amount and the amount of interest shall be calculated by diminishing balance method. (iv) The remaining directions issued by the learned Tribunal shall remain the same. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of. J.M. Poonegar for appellant; Ms. Shraddha Dixit for respondent No.2; Ms. Shakti Sharma for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.