JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 27.04.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Fast Track Court No.3, Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1542/1999 by which the learned Tribunal has held the driver of the Motor Truck No.GJ7X9126 involved in the accident contributory negligent to the extent of 20% and the driver of the Maruti Van No.GUM7988 involved in the accident contributory negligent to the extent of 80%, the appellant herein - original opponent No.2 - insurer of Maruti Van No.GUM7988 - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred the present First Appeal. 2. In a vehicular accident between the Truck No.GJ7X9126 and Maruti Van No.GUM7988 which occurred on 25.04.1999 at about 9 pm on Chikhli - Vasad Road near village Bamanvel the deceased Nayankumar Shah who was traveling in the Maruti Van died. Therefore, the original claimants filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming Rs.30 lacs towards compensation under different heads from all the opponents and towards compensation for the death of deceased passenger in the maruti van - Nayankumar Shah. That it was the case on behalf of the original claimants that the maruti van in which the deceased was traveling dashed on the rear portion of the stationary Truck No.GJ7X9126. It was the case on behalf of the original claimants that the driver of the motor truck was negligent in parking his vehicle without putting any signal to indicate its presence and therefore, the driver of the motor truck was shown negligent for the accident. On the other hand it was the case on behalf of the insured of the motor truck that as such the maruti van was driven without proper look out as it collided with the stationary vehicle and therefore, there was contributory negligence of the driver of the maruti van. That on appreciation of evidence more particularly the panchnama of the place of accident at Exh.76, by impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal has held the driver of the motor truck involved in the accident contributory negligent to the extent of 20% only and has held the driver of the maruti van involved in the accident contributory negligent to the extent of 80%. That by impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.18,49,000/- to the original claimants. That by impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.18,49,000/- to the original claimants. 2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal the appellant herein - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. insurer of the maruti van involved in the accident has preferred the present first appeal. 3. Shri R.H. Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in holding the driver of the truck contributory negligent to the extent of 20% only and in holding the driver of the maruti van contributory negligent to the extent of 80%. It is submitted that as such as the truck driver had parked his vehicle on the main road in most negligent manner and without any signal to indicate its presence, the learned Tribunal ought to have held the driver of the truck sole negligent for the accident. Relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Saudarsing Chhajusing and others v. Jashodaben and another reported in 1986 ACJ 1070 it is requested to hold the driver of the motor truck involved in the accident sole negligent. 3.1 It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - insurance company that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding future loss of dependency/future loss of income at Rs.18,24,000/- considering the loss of dependency at Rs.16,666/- per month. It is submitted that having held the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.19,000/- per month and thereafter deducting ?rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and having assessed the dependency at Rs.12,666/- per month, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the loss of dependency at Rs.16,666/- per month. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present First Appeal. 4. Though served no body appears on behalf of the original claimants. 5. Shri Palak Thakkar, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the opponent No.8 herein - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. insurer of the motor truck involved in the accident. It is vehemently submitted that on appreciation of evidence when the learned Tribunal has held the driver of the maruti van involved in the accident contributory negligent to the extent of 80%, it is required to be interfered with by this Court. Ltd. insurer of the motor truck involved in the accident. It is vehemently submitted that on appreciation of evidence when the learned Tribunal has held the driver of the maruti van involved in the accident contributory negligent to the extent of 80%, it is required to be interfered with by this Court. It is further submitted that as such due and proper care was taken by the driver of the motor truck while parking on the road. It is submitted that as such the stationary truck was parked on the left side of the road and even the truck was on some portion of the kachha road after leaving the pucca road. It is submitted that the manner in which the accident has taken place and the maruti van dashed on the rear portion of the stationary truck and the extent of damage caused to the maruti van i.e. the entire maruti van gone in loss, it can safely be presumed that the driver of the maruti van was rash and negligent and was in excessive speed. It is submitted that therefore the learned Tribunal has committed any error in holding the driver of the maruti van contributory negligent to the extent of 80%. 5.1 Now, so far as the quantum of amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is concerned, Shri Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.8 herein has as such supported Shri Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant. Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present appeal so far as challenge to the finding of the learned Tribunal on contributory negligence is concerned. 6. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties at length. Perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and we have re appreciated the entire evidence on record more particularly the panchnama of the place of accident which has been produced at Exh.76. At the outset it is required to be noted that by impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal has held the driver of the maruti van involved in the accident contributory negligent to the extent of 80% and the driver of the motor truck involved in the accident contributory negligent to the extent of 20%. At the outset it is required to be noted that by impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal has held the driver of the maruti van involved in the accident contributory negligent to the extent of 80% and the driver of the motor truck involved in the accident contributory negligent to the extent of 20%. However, it is required to be noted that and it is an admitted position that the maruti van dashed on the rear portion of the stationary truck i.e. behind the stationary motor truck. It is required to be noted that the width of the road was 23 feet. The accident took place at 9 pm. It was a highway/main road and night. From the panchnama of the place of the accident it appears that 6 & ½ feet of the motor truck (out of 7.5 feet) was on the main pucca road and only 1 feet of the motor truck was on kachha road. The driver of the maruti van was driving his vehicle on his correct side. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the driver of the maruti van contributory negligent to the extent of 80% cannot be sustained. Nothing is on record that any precautionary measures by putting any signal to indicate the presence of the stationary truck was taken by the driver of the truck. As observed herein above, the truck was parked on the highway, when it was dark and without any indication, reflector or parking lights. Identical question came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Saudarsing Chhajusing and others (Supra). In somewhat identical facts and circumstances of the case when there was a collusion between the stationary truck trailer and the motorcycle and it was found that truck trailer was parked on the National Highway, when it was dark, without any indication, reflector or parking lights, the truck driver was found negligent in parking his vehicle without putting any signal to indicate his presence, the Division Bench has held the driver of the truck sole negligent for the accident. However, at the same time it is required to be noted that while considering the contributory negligence, the conduct on the part of the driver of the other vehicle is also required to be considered. However, at the same time it is required to be noted that while considering the contributory negligence, the conduct on the part of the driver of the other vehicle is also required to be considered. From the panchnama of the place of accident, it appears that the maruti van dashed behind the motor truck in such a manner and with such an impact that the entire maruti van had gone in total loss which shows that the driver of the maruti van was also in high speed. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that instead of holding the driver of the motor truck involved in the accident contributory negligent to the extent of 20% and the driver of the maruti van contributory negligent to the extent of 80%, if the driver of the motor truck is held contributory negligent to the extent of 70% and driver of the maruti van involved in the accident to the extent of 30%, it will be reasonable and in the fitness of things. Under the circumstances, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on contributory negligence is hereby modified and it is held that the driver of the motor truck involved in the accident was contributory negligent to the extent of 70% and the driver of the maruti van involved in the accident contributory negligent to the extent of 30%. 6.1 Now, so far as the challenge to the quantum of amount awarded by the learned Tribunal more particularly awarding Rs.18,24,000/- Page under the head of future economic loss is concerned, it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the loss of dependency at Rs.16,666/- per month. However, it appears that there is some typographical error in mentioning the loss of dependency at Rs.16,666/-. It is required to be noted that the learned Tribunal had considered the income of the deceased at Rs.19,000/- per month and deducting ?rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has considered the loss of dependency at Rs.12,666/- per month. However, in the impugned judgment Rs.16,666/- is printed. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 12. Therefore, if Rs.12,666/- is multiplied by 12 and then again by 12, in that case, it will come to Rs.18,23,904/- and rounded off to Rs.18,24,000/-. Therefore, as such the learned Tribunal has considered the loss of dependency at Rs.12,666/- per month only. However, in the impugned judgment Rs.16,666/- is printed. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 12. Therefore, if Rs.12,666/- is multiplied by 12 and then again by 12, in that case, it will come to Rs.18,23,904/- and rounded off to Rs.18,24,000/-. Therefore, as such the learned Tribunal has considered the loss of dependency at Rs.12,666/- per month only. Now, so far as the challenge to the aforesaid is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such only ¼th was required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased instead of ?rd deducted by the learned Tribunal as the number of dependents were 4. Even the multiplier of 14 was required to be applied as the deceased was aged 45 years. Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 12. Therefore, as such the learned Tribunal has awarded the amount of compensation on lower side. However, neither the original claimants have appeared before this Court nor they have filed any crossobjections and/or cross appeal. We have no other alternative but to confirm the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal so far as the quantum of amount/compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is concerned. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present First Appeal succeeds in part. Impugned judgment and award dated 27.04.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Fast Track Court No.3, Nadiad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1542/1999 is hereby modified to the extent and it is held that the driver of the Motor Truck No.GJ7X9126 involved in the accident was contributory negligent to the extent of 70% and the driver of the Maruti Van No.GUM7988 involved in the accident was contributory negligent to the extent of 30%. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent only. Rest of the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby confirmed. Any amount deposited by the appellant - insurance company in excess to the aforesaid more particularly on the basis of 80% liability, the appellant insurance company shall be entitled to recover and/or get back the same from the respondent No.8 herein - insurer of the Motor Truck No.GJ7X9126. Present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.