JUDGMENT : SURINDER GUPTA, J. 1. This is appeal by claimants, Manjit Kaur and others, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (later referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) for death of Ajit Singh (later referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident on 21.07.2001 with truck bearing registration no. HR-37-8206 (later referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’). FAO No. 2673 of 2006 2. This is appeal by Baldev Raj seeking enhancement of compensation for damage to his vehicle bearing registration no. CH-01-N-0359 in a motor vehicle accident with the offending vehicle. BRIEF FACTS 3. Case of claimants, in brief, is that on 21.07.2001, the deceased alongwith his wife Manjit Kaur and daughter Manpreet Kaur was going from Jalandhar to Delhi in tempo bearing registration no. CH-01-N-0359, which was being driven by its driver Baldev Raj at a very moderate speed. At about 2.30 a.m., when they reached in the area of village Dhantori on G.T. road, their vehicle hit against the offending vehicle, which had been parked in middle of the road without observing traffic rules, taking proper precautions and without any light and indicators, as a result which, Ajit Singh died at the spot due to injuries suffered by him in chest and head while other occupants of the tempo also suffered injuries. The matter was reported to the police vide FIR No. 280 dated 22.07.2001, registered at Police Station Shahabad for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. Claimants alleged that the deceased was a driver by profession and was earning Rs. 8000/- per month. They spent Rs. 70,000/- on transportation and last rites of the deceased and claimed compensation of Rs. 10 lacs. 4. In written statement filed by owner and driver of the offending vehicle, all the averments in claim petition were denied inter-alia pleading that the accident, if any, took place, it was due to sole negligence and fault of driving of the tempo driver, which dashed the offending vehicle from behind while it had been parked on its right side kacha portion of the road. It was, however, averred that the vehicle was duly insured with the oriental insurance company and respondent no. 1, who was driving the offending vehicle, possessed legal and valid driving licence. 5. It was, however, averred that the vehicle was duly insured with the oriental insurance company and respondent no. 1, who was driving the offending vehicle, possessed legal and valid driving licence. 5. Insurer of the offending vehicle in its separate written statement also denied all the averments of claimants including the accident. 6. Pleadings of parties led to framing of the issues as follows:- 1. Whether Jagtar Singh driving his truck bearing no. HR-37-8206 in rash and negligent manner caused accident resulting in death of Ajit Singh and damage to Tempo No. CH-01N-0359 in the area of police station Shahabad on 22.07.2001? OPP 2. If issue no. 1 is proved, whether claimants are entitled to the compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether there has been any breach of condition of insurance policy, if so, its effect? OPD 4. Relief. 7. The Tribunal while recording finding on issue no. 1 held that the accident took place as the offending vehicle was standing on main road without any signal or parking lights. The Tribunal, however, observed that the tempo had hit the truck from behind, as such, driver of the tempo cannot be absolved from his negligence in causing the accident. With the above observations drivers of both the vehicles were held equally liable for the accident. 8. While assessing quantum of compensation, the Tribunal took monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 2500/- and calculated amount of compensation as follows:- S. No. Heads Calculation (i) Name of the deceased Ajit Singh (ii) Age of the deceased 38 years (iii) Income of the deceased Rs. 2500/- per month i.e. Rs. 30000 per annum (iv) Deduction of 1/3rd applied by the Tribunal (Rs. 30000-Rs. 10000) = Rs. 20000 per annum (v) Amount of dependency after applying multiplier of 16 (Rs. 20000x16) = Rs. 320000 per annum (vi) Transportation and funeral expenses Rs. 10000 Total Rs. 330000 9. About the damage to tempo, the Tribunal assessed compensation amount as Rs. 60,000/- and in both the cases 50% of the assessed compensation were allowed to claimants being a case of contributory negligence. FAO No. 569 of 2006 10. Learned counsel for appellants has argued that the deceased was a driver but the Tribunal assessed his income as Rs. 2500/- per month, which is on lower side. Even in the year 2001, a driver was earning around Rs. FAO No. 569 of 2006 10. Learned counsel for appellants has argued that the deceased was a driver but the Tribunal assessed his income as Rs. 2500/- per month, which is on lower side. Even in the year 2001, a driver was earning around Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 6000/- per month. Claimants are also entitled to addition in income of the deceased towards future prospects as per observations of Apex Court in case of Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, 2013 (9) SCC 54 and Munna Lal Jain and Others vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others, 2015 (3) RCR (Civil) 447. The deceased left behind five claimants i.e. his wife, three minor children and widow mother, as such, the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased as per observations of Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 could be 1/4th and not 1/3rd. Learned counsel for appellants has further argued that the Tribunal on analysis of evidence has observed that the truck was standing on main road without any signal and parking lights, thereby endorsing the plea raised by claimants that the truck was parked in middle of the road, without parking lights. The vehicle which is coming from behind at a normal pace cannot spot the parked vehicle except when it reaches very near and by that time it is not possible to avoid the collision. There was no lapse on the part of driver of the tempo and the Tribunal has wrongly held it to be a case of contributory negligence. 11. Learned counsel for respondents has argued that the Tribunal has rightly assessed income of the deceased as Rs. 2500/- per month keeping in view the price index prevailing in the year 2001, when the accident took place. Even if, the truck had been parked in middle of the road, driver of the offending vehicle which is coming from behind, if vigilant, could spot the parked vehicle and avoid the accident. It is evident in this case that the tempo hit the parked truck with full force resulted in injuries to its occupants and death of Ajit Singh. Keeping in view these facts, the Tribunal has rightly held that it was a case of contributory negligence. FAO No. 2673 of 2006 12. It is evident in this case that the tempo hit the parked truck with full force resulted in injuries to its occupants and death of Ajit Singh. Keeping in view these facts, the Tribunal has rightly held that it was a case of contributory negligence. FAO No. 2673 of 2006 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal has committed grave error while declining the plea of claimant that the tempo was totally smashed in the accident though, chassis and tyres were in okay condition. Photographs of the vehicle produced on record show that the tempo was damaged beyond repair. The Tribunal has committed error while limiting the amount of compensation to Rs. 60,000/- for a tempo which was of 1995 model. 13. Firstly, I take the issue as to whether it was a case of contributory negligence? The conclusion drawn by the Tribunal on analysis of evidence are extracted as follows:- “9. An analysis of the evidence on record shows that the truck No. HR-37-8306 was standing on main road without any signal and parking lights. The site plan Ex. P12 fully fortifies this fact…….” 14. Neither insurer nor owner of the offending vehicle has come in appeal assailing the above finding of the Tribunal. Similar issue was considered in FAO No. 1667 of 1997 decided on 26.07.2016 and it was held as follows:- “If a vehicle is parked in the middle of the road during night time and some vehicle coming on road ram in it, no inference can be drawn that driver of vehicle coming on road was negligent. If a person is driving vehicle at a reasonable speed during night hours, he may notice stationary vehicle or any other substance lying in the middle of the road only when he reaches very near and by that time, despite applying full brakes, it may not be possible to stop that vehicle and to avoid hitting the stationary vehicle or substance lying on the road. In such circumstances, attributing negligence or contributory negligence to the driver of moving vehicle in causing the accident will be very harsh conclusion.” 15. In this case, testimony of Manjit Kaur that the offending vehicle was parked in middle of the road without any parking lights and signal and was not visible, is un-rebutted. In such circumstances, attributing negligence or contributory negligence to the driver of moving vehicle in causing the accident will be very harsh conclusion.” 15. In this case, testimony of Manjit Kaur that the offending vehicle was parked in middle of the road without any parking lights and signal and was not visible, is un-rebutted. No evidence has come on record that the offending vehicle was either not parked in middle of the road without any indicator or that driver of the tempo was at a very fast speed. Keeping in view the above facts, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the offending vehicle was parked in middle of the road without any signal or parking lights, which lead to further conclusion that the accident had taken place due to fault of the offending vehicle and not due to the fault of driver of the tempo. The accident took place at 02.30 a.m., when it is pitch dark. To hold the driver of moving vehicle, when it hits a truck or any other vehicle parked in middle of the road without any light or indicator, as responsible or negligent, will not only be irrational conclusion but is a fact, which is not supported by any evidence on record. The testimony of only eye-witness is un-rebutted as driver of the offending vehicle has not turned up to depose and the insurer had also not produced any evidence to rebut her statement. In these circumstances, conclusion that the accident had taken place due to negligence of driver of the offending vehicle, who was negligent and took no care to realize that during night time moving traffic on the road require some indicators, lights or signal to notice a vehicle parked in middle of the road. Reference can be made to observations in case of Amarjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab, 1999 (4) RCR (Civil) 92, wherein a co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as follows:- “10. In the case of Premlata Nilamchand Sharma & Others vs. Hirbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel & Others, 1982 (2) GLR 203 , a truck & trailer was parked in the middle of the road without any light on dark night and it was held that it was the duty of the driver to park his vehicle entirely off the asphalt road and keep road open and unobstructed. The driver was, therefore, liable for his rash and negligent act. The driver was, therefore, liable for his rash and negligent act. The case of British India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Minor Khagesh Devendraprasad Jani, 1977 ACJ 416, was also considered and it was held that although the tractor-cum-trailer was parked on the left side of the asphalt road, it would still not exonerate its driver from the negligence as it was his duty under the circumstances of the case to park his tractor and trailer absolutely off the asphalt road and on the Kuchha strip. It was also found in that case that the tractor and trailer were without efficient back lights and reflectors. Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act was also considered in that case. The provisions of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959 regarding lamps and rear lamps were considered and the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the scooter driver who dashed against the tractor trailer was not guilty of negligence. 11. In the present case also the tractor was not completely off the road. Nothing has been shown to me from which I can hold that the tractor driver had taken precautions of having red lights and reflectors which are required so that the other vehicle driver could locate the parked vehicle in the night time. The present case is, therefore, directly covered by the principles laid down in the case of Premlata Nilamchand Sharma (supra). Therefore, I do not hold that there was contributory negligence.” 16. Another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Ginni Devi and Others vs. Union of India and Others, 2007 (3) RCR (Civil) 70, held as follows:- “14. The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India was that the photographs produced on record clearly showed that the military vehicle was parked on katcha berm and further that the deceased Sunil Kumar had hit the said vehicle from behind. The contention of the learned counsel for the UOI was that in view of this fact, it was a case of contributory negligence and, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue no. 1 deserved to be reversed. The contention of the learned counsel for the UOI was that in view of this fact, it was a case of contributory negligence and, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue no. 1 deserved to be reversed. By placing reliance on a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Smt. Shrimanti vs. Krishna Dev Madipal, 2005 (1) RCR (Civil) 124, it was contended that as the military truck was hit from the behind by the driver of the Maruti car, it was a case of contributory negligence. This contention of the learned counsel for the UOI cannot be accepted as in the said authority the bus going at a high speed ahead of the motorcyclist which stopped suddenly and, therefore, the motorcyclist who hit the bus from behind was also held to be negligent as he was required to keep some distance between his vehicle and the vehicle going ahead to him. It is pertinent to notice here that the learned Tribunal has taken a note of the fact that the military truck was parked by its driver without any indication and it was on account of his negligence of not giving proper indication that the accident had taken place and, therefore, the learned Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the accident had taken place due to negligence on the part of the driver of the military truck.................” 17. In view of facts and law on the point discussed above, I don’t find myself in agreement with observations of the Tribunal that driver of the moving vehicle is required to be more careful and to look out such obstacles ‘commonly found’ on the road. It is not supposed that any obstacle can be placed on the road particularly at night time without proper signals, indicators and precautions. The above observations, if approved, will give licence and approve the act of wrongdoers, who may leave their vehicles in middle of the road thereby jeopardizing the lives of travellers on the road during night time. The finding of the Tribunal holding drivers of both the vehicles equally liable for accident are set aside and it is held that the accident was caused due to sole negligence of driver of the offending vehicle. QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION 18. The Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased as Rs. 2500/- per month equating him with labourer. The finding of the Tribunal holding drivers of both the vehicles equally liable for accident are set aside and it is held that the accident was caused due to sole negligence of driver of the offending vehicle. QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION 18. The Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased as Rs. 2500/- per month equating him with labourer. Manjit Kaur, wife of the deceased, while appearing as PW-1 has stated that her husband was driver and was earning Rs. 8000/- per month. Baldev Raj while appearing as PW-2 has stated that Ajit Singh was employed as driver by him, who was driving matador, which met with accident on the fateful day. He had also verified the genuineness of driving licence of the deceased while employing him. There is no proof of income of the deceased on record. However, from the testimony of claimant as well as PW-2 Baldev Raj, it is proved that the deceased was a driver by profession. In case of Minu Rout and Another vs. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and Others, 2013 (10) SCC 695 , income of a driver in the year 2004 was assessed as Rs. 6000/- per month. Applying the same parameters, income of the deceased in this case, can be safely assessed as Rs. 4000/- per month. In view of observations of Apex Court in Rajesh’s case (supra) and Munna Lal Jain’s case (supra), claimants are entitled to 50% addition in income of the deceased towards future prospects. Besides that, claimant no. 1-Manjit Kaur is entitled to compensation of Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium and claimants no. 2 to 4, who are children, to Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of love and affection care and guidance. Claimant no. 5, mother of the deceased, is also entitled to similar compensation of Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of estate, love and affection. The Tribunal allowed compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation expenses and last rites of the deceased, which calls for no interference. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 16 but keeping in view age of the deceased, who was 38 years of age, the suitable multiplier attracted to this case is 15 as per observations of Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased, who left behind 5 (five) dependants, is taken as 1/4th instead of 1/3rd of income of the deceased. 19. 19. In view of my above discussion, compensation to which claimants are entitled is reassessed as follows:- S. No. Heads Calculation (i) Name of the deceased Ajit Singh (ii) Age of the deceased 38 years (iii) Income of the deceased Rs. 4000 (iv) 50% of (iii) above to be added as future prospects (Rs. 4000+Rs. 2000) = Rs. 6000 per month (v) 1/4th of (iv) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased Rs. 6000-Rs. 1500) = Rs. 4500 per month (vi) Compensation after multiplier of 15 is applied (Rs. 4500x12x15) = Rs. 810000 per annum (vii) Loss of consortium for the wife Rs. 40000 (viii) Loss of love and affection care and guidance for the children Rs. 40000 (ix) Loss of estate, love and affection for mother Rs. 40000 (x) Compensation for transportation and funeral expenses Rs. 10000 Total Rs. 940000 FAO No. 2673 of 2006 20. Claimant-Baldev Raj while appearing as PW-2 has stated that his matador was of 1995 model. He has given its value as Rs. 3 lacs but the same is not supported by any evidence on record. Constable Ashok Kumar, who had examined the matador has stated that due to damage suffered by the vehicle, it was almost completely damaged. However, tyres of the vehicle and its chassis were in okay condition. Krishan Chug, surveyor assessed loss to the vehicle vide report (Ex. P-6) but he has also not given the quantum of total loss to the vehicle. The Tribunal while assessing amount of compensation discarded the plea of claimant that vehicle was totally damaged. However, on perusal of photographs (Ex. P-7 to Ex. P-11), no other conclusion except the one that the vehicle was badly damaged beyond repair, can be drawn. However, I also feel constrained to specify the quantum of damage in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence in this regard and enhance the amount of compensation from Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 1 lac. 21. As a sequel of my discussion above, both the appeals have merit and are accepted. Award of the Tribunal is modified and compensation allowed to claimants in FAO No. 569 of 2006 is enhanced from Rs. 3,30,000 to Rs. 9,40,000/- and for the damage to the vehicle in FAO No. 2673 of 2006 from Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. 21. As a sequel of my discussion above, both the appeals have merit and are accepted. Award of the Tribunal is modified and compensation allowed to claimants in FAO No. 569 of 2006 is enhanced from Rs. 3,30,000 to Rs. 9,40,000/- and for the damage to the vehicle in FAO No. 2673 of 2006 from Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation will carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till actual realization. Respondent no. 3-Insurance Company being insurer of the offending vehicle will deposit the share of claimants-appellants in their bank accounts or pay the same through demand drafts.