JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (oral) A claim petition was filed by Smt. Kalawati Pandey against K.L. Ahuja, owner of Santro car no. U.A. 08D / 7555 and United India Insurance Co. before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Haridwar, which was numbered as M.A.C. case no. 09 of 2008. The claimants were the legal representatives of the deceased Anand Mohan Pandey, who died in a course of accident on 24.12.2007. The claimants prayed for a compensation to the tune of Rs. 27,35,000/-. Claimant no. 1 is the wife of the deceased, claimants no. 2, 4 and 5 are the daughters of the deceased, claimant no. 3 is the son of the deceased and claimant no. 6 is the mother of the deceased. The claim petition was contested by the respondents by filing their written statements. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by learned Tribunal: 1) Whether the accident occurred on 24.12.2007, at 06:20 P.M., near BHEL Material gate, when the driver of Santro car no. U.A. 08D / 7555 was driving his vehicle rashly and negligently and hit the scooterist Anand Mohan Pandey, who sustained injuries and died on the spot? 2) Whether the scooterist contributed to the accident, as has been stated by defendant no. 1, in his written statement? 3) Whether the Santro car was being driven by driver without driving license and valid papers? 4) Whether the petition has been filed as a result of collusion between the claimants and owner of the vehicle? 5) Whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of the owner of the scooter and Insurance Company as parties to the claim petition? 6) To what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled? If so, against which of the defendants. 2. PW1 Smt. Kalawati Pandey, PW2 Amba Dutt Pandey and PW3 Rohitash Kumar were examined on behalf of the claimants. Documents were also filed in support of the claim petition. No one was examined on behalf of the defendants. 3. Learned Tribunal held that the driver of Santro car was having valid driving license and valid papers when the accident took place. Issue no. 3 was, therefore, decided against the defendant no. 2. Issue no. 5 was also decided to the effect that the petition was not bad for non-joinder of the owner of the scooter or the Insurance Company as necessary party to the claim petition. Issue no. 3 was, therefore, decided against the defendant no. 2. Issue no. 5 was also decided to the effect that the petition was not bad for non-joinder of the owner of the scooter or the Insurance Company as necessary party to the claim petition. Hence, issue no. 5 was also decided against defendant no. 2. There was no collusion between the claimants and owner of the Santro car and, therefore, issue no. 4 was also decided against the Insurance Company (defendant no. 2). 4. In order to prove its case, PW1 and PW2 were examined on behalf of the claimants. Undoubtedly, they are not the eyewitnesses to the incident. PW2 lodged an FIR at police station, Ranipur on 25.12.2007, at 11:50 A.M., enumerating the facts contained therein that Anand Mohan Pandey (deceased) was working as crane operator in BHEL on the relevant date. On 24.12.2007, when a colleague of the deceased attained the age of his superannuation, a party was hosted in his honour. When the incident took place the scooterist was accompanied by a pillion rider, Anil Tomar, who was also an employee of BHEL. When the scooterist alongwith pillion rider reached near Material Gate of BHEL, a Santro car no. U.A. 08 D / 7555, was coming from hospital road rashly and negligently, which hit the scooter, as a consequence of which, the scooter was damaged and the scooterist sustained serious injuries. The scooterist was taken to BHEL hospital, where he was declared ‘brought dead’. Pillion rider Anil Tomar was referred to Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust, Jolly Grant hospital. The incident took place at 06.20 P.M. Criminal law was set into motion on the next date i.e. 25.12.2007, at 11:50 A.M. Case crime no. 374 of 2007 under Sections 279, 338, 304A, 427 IPC was registered against unknown driver. After investigation of the case, a chargesheet was submitted against the driver of Santro car namely, Khairati Lal Ahuja (respondent herein). Paper no. 30-C is the certified copy of the postmortem report of the deceased. The postmortem was conducted on 25.12.2007, at 01:30 P.M. According to the Medical Officer, the victim died as a result of ante mortem injuries sustained by him. A copy of the inquest report was also brought on record. 5. Paper no. 30-C is the certified copy of the postmortem report of the deceased. The postmortem was conducted on 25.12.2007, at 01:30 P.M. According to the Medical Officer, the victim died as a result of ante mortem injuries sustained by him. A copy of the inquest report was also brought on record. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence furnished in support thereof, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused by rash and negligent act of the driver of Santro car. The learned Tribunal also came to the conclusion that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased scooterist and, therefore, issues no. 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the claimant and against the defendants (respondents herein). Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted, among other things, that the accident was the result of the contributory negligence of the scooterist. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Santro car was coming to the left of the scooterist, i.e., it was coming in the right direction. Initially, the scooterist was also coming to his left, i.e., in the right direction, but when he turned to right to go to Masjid road, he collided with the Santro car, as a result of which, the left hand side of the scooterist got damaged and the scooterist sustained serious injuries resulting into his death. According to learned counsel, had the scooterist not turned to right, without wearing helmet and with no head light, the accident could have been avoided. Relying on the principle of res ipsa loquitur, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the scooterist is also responsible for the said accident and he has also contributed to his own death. 6. Three witnesses have been examined on behalf of the claimants. Two are the family members, one of whom is reporter and the another is the wife of the deceased. The third witness is the employee of BHEL, who has proved the income of the deceased. No evidence has been offered either on behalf of the Insurance Company or the owner of the Santro car to say that the scooterist also contributed to the accident which took place on 24.12.2007, at 06:20 P.M. The Investigating Officer has not been examined by the defendants/respondents. No evidence has been offered either on behalf of the Insurance Company or the owner of the Santro car to say that the scooterist also contributed to the accident which took place on 24.12.2007, at 06:20 P.M. The Investigating Officer has not been examined by the defendants/respondents. The copy of site plan which has been placed before this Court at the time of arguments has also not been brought on record before the learned Tribunal. Possibly it would have been a case of contributory negligence, as is apparent from the site plan, but the same has not been brought on record before the learned Tribunal. No witness has been examined on behalf of the defendants / respondents to indicate that the accident was the result of contributory negligence on the part of the scooterist. This court has, therefore, no option but to accept the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Santro car. 7. Issue no. 6 was framed to the effect as to what amount of compensation, if any, are the claimants entitled? The deceased was aged 49 years when the accident took place. His date of birth was recorded as 15.12.1958. This fact is under no dispute that the deceased had six surviving family members, as dependents. The deceased was working as Crane Operator in BHEL. According to PW3, who is a Law Officer in BHEL, the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.14,737/-. As such, the annual income of the deceased was Rs. 1,76,844/-. 8. Relying upon the decision of Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs Delhi Transport Corporation and others (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the learned Tribunal has thought it appropriate to deduct one fourth from the annual income of the deceased as personal expenses in view of dependency of six family members. Learned Tribunal has also rightly held that a multiplier of 13 will apply to the instant case. Learned Tribunal, in his considered opinion, awarded Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- as loss of consortium to the claimants. There are catena of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court that the calculation in M.A.C. case is purely a guess work. There cannot be a strait jacket formula in awarding compensation. Learned Tribunal, in his considered opinion, awarded Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- as loss of consortium to the claimants. There are catena of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court that the calculation in M.A.C. case is purely a guess work. There cannot be a strait jacket formula in awarding compensation. After deducting ¼ of the income towards personal expenses, the annual income of the deceased comes out to be Rs.1,32,633/- considering the dependency of the family. This Court is of the opinion that whereas amount of future prospects assessed by the learned Tribunal at the rate of 30% for the first year (i.e. Rs. 1,32,633 + Rs. 39,790/- = total Rs. 1,72,423/-) is excessive and at higher side, a percentage of 20 for the first year towards future prospects (i.e. Rs. 1,32,633 + Rs. 26,526 = total Rs. 1,59,159/-) will be apt and just in the instant case, and the annual income of the deceased assessed at Rs. 1,32,633/- for the balance 12 years, as was done by learned Tribunal, shall be kept intact. Deceased was aged 49 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, amount will be assessed at [Rs. 1,32,633 (annual income of the deceased) + Rs. 26,526 (20% of 1,32,633 for the first year) = total Rs. 1,59,159/-]. Applying the multiplier of 13 thereon, total annual income of the deceased comes to (Rs. 15,91,596 X 13) = Rs. 20,69,067. Consequently, the total amount payable as compensation to the claimants should be Rs. 20,69,067 + Rs. 2,000 + Rs. 5,000 = Rs. 20,76,067.00 (in all). 9. For the reasons as discussed above, both the A.Os. stand disposed of. The impugned award dated 28.08.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Haridwar, in M.A.C. Case no. 09 of 2008, is modified by enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs. 17,68,619/- to Rs. 20,76,067/-. Six per cent interest per annum awarded by the Tribunal is affirmed, which shall be payable on the amount enhanced as above, from the date of filing of petition till the date of payment.