JUDGMENT & ORDER : This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, is directed against the judgment and award dated 03.05.2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.5, Agartala in Case No. TS (MAC) 404 of 2011. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. K. Bhattacharjee for the appellant-insurance company and learned counsel, Mr. H. Debnath for the claimant-respondents. 3. No representation on behalf of respondent No.5. 4. On 11.09.2011, the unfortunate date of accident, Samir Debnath, the victim of the accident, who was the husband of clamant respondent No.1, son of claimant respondent No.2 and father of claimant respondent Nos.3 and 4, was driving his own vehicle i.e. Tata Magic TR01D2766 with some passengers and was on way towards Champaknagar from Agartala at about 200 p.m. when the vehicle reached at Khayerpur another truck vehicle bearing No. ML05G5661 being driven rashly and negligently coming from opposite direction knocked the vehicle driven by Samir Debnath and as a result, the vehicle of Samir Debnath went off the road and Samir Debnath sustained severe injuries. He died on the spot. Some passengers of his vehicle also got severe injuries. 5. A police case was registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Kartik Chandra Pal against the driver of the offending vehicle No. ML05G5661. The claimants contended that the deceased Samir Debnath was aged about 30 years and he used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month and therefore, they claimed compensation of Rs. 17,50,000/-. 6. Opposite Party No.1, the owner of the alleged offending truck vehicle submitted written statement denying rash and negligent driving of the truck vehicle and further stated that the deceased Samir Debnath who was driving the Tata Magic vehicle also responsible for the accident. He has also stated that the vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2 i.e. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. covering the risk on the date of accident and so the liability if any, should be borne by the insurance company. 7. Opposite Party No.2 i.e. the insurance company also submitted written statement denying and disputing the accident and the claim of the claimants. 8. The Tribunal framed two issues namely: 1. Ltd. covering the risk on the date of accident and so the liability if any, should be borne by the insurance company. 7. Opposite Party No.2 i.e. the insurance company also submitted written statement denying and disputing the accident and the claim of the claimants. 8. The Tribunal framed two issues namely: 1. Did Samir Debnath sustain any injury on 11.09.2011 at about 1400 hours near Traffic Post at Khayerpur on the Assam Agartala Road in a Road traffic accident involving the TATA Magic bearing No.TR01D2766 and the Truck vehicle bearing No. ML05G5661 due to rash or negligent driving by the driver of either or both the vehicles resulting in death of Samir Debnath? 2. Are the claimants entitled to be compensated under the provisions of the M.V. Act? If so, to what extent and who shall be liable to pay the same? 9. The claimant petitioner No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and proved the records of the police case including the FIR and the charge-sheet, the survival certificate and the driving license of deceased Samir Debnath. 10. Opposite Parties adduced no evidence. 11. The Tribunal decided the issues in favour of the claimants and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 15,12,600/-. 12. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhattacharjee appearing for the appellant insurance company submitted that the claimant in his cross examination admitted that there was a head on collision and so as per the decision of the Apex Court in Bijay Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta & Ors., reported in AIR 2006 SC 1255 the liability should be fixed equally on the owners of both the vehicles because it is a clear case of contributory negligence. 13. The Tribunal discussed the issue in Para 8 of the judgment. It is held by the Tribunal that the fact of Bijay Dugar (supra) is quite different. I am in full agreement with the observation of the Tribunal. In the case of Bijay Dugar (supra) the driver of the Maruti car found the bus vehicle coming from the opposite direction in a jigjag manner and there was head on collision and the Apex Court directed fixing of the liability equally because the driver of the Maruti vehicle had the opportunity to avoid head on collision. In the case of Bijay Dugar (supra) the driver of the Maruti car found the bus vehicle coming from the opposite direction in a jigjag manner and there was head on collision and the Apex Court directed fixing of the liability equally because the driver of the Maruti vehicle had the opportunity to avoid head on collision. In the present case except that statement of P.W.1 that it was head on collision, there is no other evidence that for the deceased there was any scope to avoid the accident. The records of the police case shows that the FIR was lodged immediately after the accident i.e. on 11.09.2011 itself and the allegation was made against the driver of offending truck vehicle No.ML05G5661. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the driver of that vehicle. The Police report by itself is not an evidence but to show that there was negligence on the part of the deceased also, the respondent has to adduce evidence. Here neither the driver of the offending vehicle nor any other witness examined to show that the accident occurred for the fault driving of both the vehicles. P.W.1 was not an eye witness of the accident. She simply stated on the basis of what she gathered. However, she has also not been cross examined that her husband was also driving the vehicle rashly and negligently as a result of which the accident had occurred. So, under such circumstances, the ratio of the decision of Bijay Dugar (supra) cannot be applied in the present case. 14. The next argument advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Bhattacharjee is that there is no age proof certificate produced by the petitioners to calculate the compensation applying the multiplier of 16. I find that the driving license of the deceased has been proved and in the driving license the date of birth of the deceased has been mentioned as 07.12.1979 which means he was aged about 31/32 years at the time of accident. Therefore, fixing of multiplier 16 was appropriate. The Tribunal calculated compensation applying the ratio of decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation Ltd. & Anr. [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] and Santosh Devi Vs. National Co. Ltd. & Ors.[ (2012) 6 SCC 421 ] and I find nothing wrong in the calculation made by the Tribunal. 15. The Tribunal calculated compensation applying the ratio of decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation Ltd. & Anr. [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] and Santosh Devi Vs. National Co. Ltd. & Ors.[ (2012) 6 SCC 421 ] and I find nothing wrong in the calculation made by the Tribunal. 15. The appeal, therefore, found to be devoid of any merit and stands dismissed. 16. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.