JUDGMENT : S.R. Paliwal, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.6.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur ('the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.99,000/- to the claimants along with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 3.7.1995. 2. The application for compensation was filed by the claimants – parents/brother of deceased Prakash with the averments that on 17.3.1995 at about 11:45 a.m. deceased Prakash along with Mahendra @ Pintu and Rameshwar were travelling on scooter – RRN -5531 and was going towards Jhalamand, as the scooter reached near New Campus, two taxis overtaking each other came from the other side and Taxi No. RJ-19G- 4023, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Manohar Lal collided with the scooter, which resulted in grievous injuries to all the three occupants of the scooter, Prakash succumbed to the injuries. 3. It was inter-alia claimed that the deceased was aged about 18 years, he was studying in Class X and used to work with the claimant / father as part-time mechanic on his scooter repairing shop and his monthly income was Rs. 1,500/-. 4. Based on the said averments, a compensation of Rs.10,40,000/- was sought. Two other claim petitions by Mahendra and Rameshwar, the other two occupants of the scooter were also filed. 5. The application was opposed by the non-claimants owner and driver of the loading taxi, it was inter-alia claimed that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by deceased Prakash. 6. The insurance company also filed its reply and opposed the application. 7. All the three claim petitions were consolidated and on behalf of the claimants, five witnesses were examined and several documents were exhibited. On behalf of the non-claimant Manohar Lal – driver of the loading taxi was examined. 8. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of negligence of both the driver of the scooter as well as the loading taxi. 9. On behalf of the non-claimant Manohar Lal – driver of the loading taxi was examined. 8. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of negligence of both the driver of the scooter as well as the loading taxi. 9. While assessing the amount of compensation, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the dependency of the claimants can be taken at Rs.1,000/- per month and after applying the multiplier of 15 assessed the compensation at Rs.1,80,000/- towards loss of income, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.1,000/- towards damage to scooter and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, in all a sum of Rs.1,98,000/- was awarded and deducting 50% towards contributory negligence of the driver of the scooter, awarded a sum of Rs.99,000/-. No amount was awarded to the claimant No. 3 brother of the deceased. 10. The other two claimants were also awarded compensation towards injuries suffered by them. 11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal committed error in coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of contributory negligence by deceased Prakash. It was submitted with reference to the statements by eye-witnesses PW-2, PW-3 & PW-4 that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the driver of the loading taxi only and the Tribunal committed error in relying on the site map (Ex.-2) for coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of contributory negligence of the deceased. It was submitted that the site map prepared by the police is not a substantive piece of evidence and therefore, the same in view of oral evidence could not have been relied on by the Tribunal for coming to the conclusion that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence. 12. With reference to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, it was submitted that despite the evidence led by the claimants regarding income of the deceased, for apparently no reason the said income has not been accepted, multiplier adopted is less and amount towards future prospects has not been granted. 13. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. : (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 14. 13. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. : (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 14. It was further submitted that the Tribunal committed error in not awarding any compensation to brother of the deceased. It was prayed that the finding on contributory negligence be set-aside, the amount of compensation be enhanced and appeal be allowed. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the award impugned. It was further submitted that as the finding of contributory negligence has been recorded in three claim cases and the petitioners have chosen not to challenge the finding in other two awards, the same would operate as res judicata and therefore, the appeal on the said aspect is not maintainable. 16. It was further submitted that the finding on contributory negligence recorded by the Tribunal is justified in the circumstances of the case, inasmuch as, the location of the vehicles as indicated in the site map and the fact that the loading taxi went on and turned turtle after 18 feet. from the point of accident and the scooter in question went for over 40 feet clearly indicates that both the drivers were rash and therefore, the finding in this regard does not call for any interference. 17. Qua the amount of compensation, it was submitted that the amount awarded is just in the circumstances of the case, inasmuch as, no evidence has been led qua the income of the deceased, the multiplier based on the age of the appellants is justified and that the award of future prospects in a case where the deceased is 18 years of age is not contemplated. It was prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 18. Reliance was placed on judgment in Machindranath Kernath Kasar v. D.S. Mylarappa & Ors. : 2008 ACJ 1964 . 19. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 20. It was prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 18. Reliance was placed on judgment in Machindranath Kernath Kasar v. D.S. Mylarappa & Ors. : 2008 ACJ 1964 . 19. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 20. So far as preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents about the appeal being barred by res judicata is concerned, the submissions made in this regard has apparently no substance, inasmuch as, besides the fact that the basic requirement of the parties being identical in the two litigations regarding which the plea of res judicata is sought to be enforced is missing, in so far as, the finding regarding contributory negligence is concerned, the said finding only had relevance in so far as the claim raised by the appellants was concerned and the same had no concern in so far as the other two claimants i.e. Mahendra and Rameshwar, who were pillion rider of the scooter are concerned as qua them irrespective of negligence of either the driver of the scooter or driver of the loading taxi, the same was a case of composite negligence. 21. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that as the appellants who were not parties to the claim applications filed by Mahendra and Rameshwar have not been challenged the said awards, the same would operate as res judicata. 22. So far as the judgment in the case of Machindranath Kernath Kasar (supra) is concerned, the same was passed in the circumstances wherein the two claim applications were decided by the claims Tribunal and the driver of the vehicle was held negligence. However, when the said driver filed application for compensation, the findings recorded in two other cases, which arose out of the same accident was held to operate as res judicata, which aspect was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 23. The distinguishing feature in two cases has been essential requirement in all the three cases as in the case of Machindranath Kernath Kasar (supra) was the liability on account of such finding, which is apparently missing in the present case and therefore, the said judgment has no relevance. 24. 23. The distinguishing feature in two cases has been essential requirement in all the three cases as in the case of Machindranath Kernath Kasar (supra) was the liability on account of such finding, which is apparently missing in the present case and therefore, the said judgment has no relevance. 24. Coming to the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence of both the vehicles in question, it is not in dispute that the deceased was driving scooter along with two other occupants and it is claimed by the eye witnesses i.e. PW-2 Jethu Singh, PW-3 Mahesh, PW-4 Mahendra and PW-5 Rameshwar, both occupants of the scooter, consistently that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of the loading taxi. However, a look at the statements of the two eye-witnesses i.e. PW-2 Jethu Singh and PW-3 Mahesh, the only indication made was that the scooter in question was going on its correct side and none of the two witnesses have indicated that the accident occurred at which part of the road and the place of impact when the vehicles struck each other from the opposite direction. 25. While PW-2 Jethu Singh claimed that the loading taxi over took him, PW-3 Mahesh claimed that the scooter overtook him and thereafter, they met with the accident. However, as already noticed herein-before, both the witnesses did not indicate as to which part of the road the accident took place. 26. So far as other two witnesses PW-4 Mahendra and PW-5 Rameshwar are concerned, besides the fact that both are claimants, both became unconscious after the accident took place as they fell down from the scooter and therefore, their omnibus testimony regarding the fact of accident having taken place only on account of rash driving by loading taxi, cannot be accepted. 27. The site map which has been prepared by the police and has been exhibited in the statement of Babu Lal, father of the deceased indicates that the place where the accident took place, the road was 25 feet wide and on the correct side of the scooter, the same was 20.5 feet and on the correct side of the loading taxi, the same was 12 feet from its side, which clearly indicates that the point of impact which has been indicated in the site map was on more on the right side of the road. Besides the fact that the site map also indicates that the loading taxi went of 18 feet and turned turtle from the point of impact, whereas the scooter went 40 feet off from the point of impact before the riders fell down, clearly indicates that besides the fact that both the vehicles were being driven rashly, it cannot be said that the driver of the scooter was not negligent as claimed, otherwise the situation as indicated in the site map would not have been as it has been indicated. 28. In view thereof, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants regarding lack of contributory negligence cannot be accepted. 29. So far as the percentage of contributory negligence is concerned, for lack of any cross-objection on part of the respondents, the finding regarding 50% negligence each does not call for any interference. 30. Coming to the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant claimed that the deceased while working as a part-time mechanic along with his father used to earn about Rs. 1,500/- per month. In the cross-objection of the said witness except for asking question regarding the timing when he used to do the work nothing material has been asked. It is not uncommon that the young children of mechanics or the workshop owners work with their parents in the workshop in their leisure time and working necessarily results in earning and in view thereof, the claim made by the claimants regarding the deceased earning about Rs.1,500/- per month cannot be said to be an amount which is so excessive so as to be not believable. 31. So far as adoption of multiplier is concerned, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2012) 11 SCC 738 and Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma : (2015) 6 SCC 347 , instead of age of the parents, the age of the deceased has to be taken into consideration and in view thereof, the multiplier of 18 deserves to be adopted. 32. 32. So far as the award of future prospects is concerned, though, the same is claimed based on what the deceased was doing i.e. working in the workshop of his father on part-time basis, in view of the fact that the deceased was studying in Class X and was claimed to be a good student, the future prospects have to be examined from that point of view and therefore, the compensation has to be assessed keeping in view the said aspect. 33. In view thereof, the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.2,250/- per month and after deducting 50% towards his personal expenses instead of Rs.1,000/- as taken by the Tribunal, the dependency of the claimants is assessed at Rs.1,125/- per month and after adopting multiplier of 18, the claimants would be entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.2,43,000/- towards loss of income. 34. So far as the amount awarded towards funeral expenses, medical expenses and loss towards damage to scooter is concerned, the said amount does not call for any interference. However, the amount of Rs.5,000/- each awarded to the parents towards loss of love and affection is concerned, the said amount is too meagre and the same is, therefore, enhanced to Rs.20,000/- each. 35. Further so far as denial of amount towards loss of love and affection to the brother – claimant No. 3 is concerned, the same also cannot be sustained and the brother would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. 36. In view of the above, the claimants would be entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.2,43,000 + 2000 + 5000 + 1000 + 40,000 + 10,000 = 3,01,000/-. However, in view of the contributory negligence as found by the Tribunal and upheld herein-before, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,50,500/-. On the enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs.51,500/-, the claimants would be entitled to interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 4.5.1995 to the date of actual payment. The amount be paid in Saving Bank account of the appellants i.e. appellant No. 3 be paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- along with interest and the appellants No. 1 & 2 be paid a sum of Rs.23,250/- along with interest respectively. 37. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The amount be paid in Saving Bank account of the appellants i.e. appellant No. 3 be paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- along with interest and the appellants No. 1 & 2 be paid a sum of Rs.23,250/- along with interest respectively. 37. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The award impugned is modified to the extent that the appellants would be entitled for further compensation to the tune of Rs.51,500/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 4.5.1995. 38. The insurance company is directed to pay the amount of enhanced compensation within a period of six weeks from the date of judgment.