JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeals are preferred by the appellant – National Insurance Company Limited for quashing and setting aside the common impugned judgment and award delivered by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Jamnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.489 of 1994, 41 of 1995, 8 of 1995 and 46 of 1995. 2. By way of preferring the present appeals, the appellant – insurance company has, inter alia, contended that learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has wrongfully arrived at the finding that the driver of stationary truck No.GTP 6016 is the sole negligent. It is further contended that the said finding is not in consonance with the evidence on record which is required to be reversed as such or contribution on the part of the driver of truck No.GTP 6016 is required to be reduced as such. Further, it is also contended that the impugned award passed in the respective claim petitions so far as the deceased and injured persons are concerned, the same is excessive and the amount of compensation is not in accordance with the general principles and guidelines issued by the higher courts in this regard which is also required to be reduced as such. 3. The short facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the accident occurred on 9.11.1994 on Jamnagar Rajkot Highway at about 3.00 a.m. wherein three persons travelling in ambassador car No.GJ-10-T-1735 have expired and one passenger sustained serious injuries. The accident in question occurred due to collision between two vehicles i.e. ambassador car No.GJ- 10-T-1735 and stationary truck No.GTP 6016. Ultimately, the appellant filed the aforesaid claim petitions before the learned Tribunal. 4. Heard Mr.Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company, Mr.Nirav Thakkar, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Ms.Amee Yagnik, learned advocate for respondent No.8. Though served, none appears for remaining respondents. 5. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta for the appellant – insurance company has vehemently contended that, of course, the accident took place during nocturnal hours. He contended that truck No.GTP 6016 was found in stationary condition and driver of ambassador car No. GJ-10- T-1735 collided with stationary truck from behind and, therefore, learned Tribunal could have fixed contributory negligence on the part of driver of ambassador car also. He contended that truck No.GTP 6016 was found in stationary condition and driver of ambassador car No. GJ-10- T-1735 collided with stationary truck from behind and, therefore, learned Tribunal could have fixed contributory negligence on the part of driver of ambassador car also. 5.1 On the point of negligence, learned advocate Mr.Mehta has taken this Court through the finding recorded and reasons assigned by learned Tribunal, panchnama of scene of accident as well as oral and documentary evidence on record. In support of his arguments, Mr.Mehta has relied upon the decision in the case of Raj Rani and others Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 654 . This Court has minutely gone through the evidence on record. On going through the evidence on record i.e. panchnama of scene of accident which itself is decisive so far as the situation in which the truck was in stationary condition upon the national highway and its situation, as such. Indisputably, the accident occurred on Jamnagar Rajkot Highway. The position of truck in stationary condition clearly reveals from the panchnama of scene of accident that front wheel was found about 14 feet away from the edge of tar road, similarly, rear wheel was found from about 15 feet away from the edge of tar road. Indisputably, the aforesaid truck was lying there because of mechanical failure occurred in it. 6. Before learned Tribunal, injured eye witness has been examined and on conjoint reading of the pleadings, it was pleaded that truck was found in stationary condition in the middle of the road during nocturnal hours and the truck has not kept any reflectors or put parking light on upon it so that the vehicles coming from behind can see that the truck is stationary there in mechanical failure condition. Not only that no other caution sign indicating that the truck was in stationary condition was placed. The fact narrated in the petition and deposed by the eye witness clearly finds corroboration from the panchnama of scene of accident. In light of the aforesaid evidence, learned Tribunal has clearly recorded sole negligence on the part of the driver of stationary truck. The fact narrated in the petition and deposed by the eye witness clearly finds corroboration from the panchnama of scene of accident. In light of the aforesaid evidence, learned Tribunal has clearly recorded sole negligence on the part of the driver of stationary truck. It is true that generally in such cases, the Tribunal or the Court has taken the view that when any vehicle is found in stationary condition on the side by road, 50% - 50% contributory negligence is apportioned on the part of the driver of the stationary vehicle and the driver of another vehicle dashed from the behind. 7. This Court has gone through the entire material available on record in the nature of FIR, panchnama of scene of offence, depositions and the situation found at the time of accident upon the national highway. In the present case, peculiar facts and circumstances are emerging wherein the aforesaid judgment relied upon by learned advocate Mr.Mehta in the case of Raj Rani (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that generally in such fact situation, mechanical break down vehicles are used to be parked in the side by road or on the service road otherwise there may be collision or hitting from behind. In the present case, truck No.GTP 6016 which was found stationary in the middle of the road without keeping any tail light or any reflector so that a person coming from behind can locate and notice that vehicle is in stationary condition on the middle of the highway road and can take due care and caution to save his own vehicle as well as belonging to it. Admittedly, in the present case, the incident occurred on the national highway. Normally, the width of the national highway leading to Jamnagar Rajkot is 24 feet. The wheels of the truck found about 15 feet away from the edge of the tar road which clearly demonstrates that the truck was in stationary condition in the middle of the road. Therefore, without reflectors and tail light during nocturnal hours, another vehicle coming from behind, by no stretch of imagination, can locate the stationary truck in the middle of the road. As a result, the incident in question occurred which clearly indicatives of the negligence on the part of driver of the stationary truck. Therefore, without reflectors and tail light during nocturnal hours, another vehicle coming from behind, by no stretch of imagination, can locate the stationary truck in the middle of the road. As a result, the incident in question occurred which clearly indicatives of the negligence on the part of driver of the stationary truck. Therefore, the argument advanced by learned advocate Mr.Mehta for the appellant – insurance company for apportioning liability upon another vehicle involved in the accident is not acceptable. 8. On the point of quantum, learned advocate for the appellant has raised the dispute that the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is excessive which is required to be slashed down, as such. 9. In MACP No.489 of 1994, age of deceased Dipak is mentioned in the claim petition to be 27 years. In order to prove the age, school leaving certificate has been produced by Exh.111 disclosing the date of birth to be 14.2.1987. Therefore, the age of the deceased is proved to be 27 years. Hence, he was falling in the age group of 26 to 30 years. The claimants have pleaded that the deceased was working in MD Construction Company as well as he was also doing other work and he was also running the sole proprietary concern, but no documentary evidence in the nature of income tax return or any other document indicating his income is produced except one IT return filed subsequent to his death for the year 1994-1995 disclosing his income to be Rs.32,780/- p.a. Under the circumstances, learned Tribunal has presumed the income of the deceased considering his occupation to be Rs.60,000/- p.a. Hence, when the deceased was engaged in the construction company as well as he was also running the sole proprietary concern and considering his young age in light of the income shown before the income tax department nearly Rs.33000/-, his income may be presumed to be Rs.40,000/- p.a. As the deceased was falling in the age group of 26 to 30 years, 50% rise in the income is required to be added for arriving at the prospective income and it would come to Rs.60,000/- (Rs.40,000 + Rs.20,000 = Rs.60,000/-). As the claimants are three in number, in view of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , 1/3rd amount is required to be deducted for personal and living expenses of the deceased if he would have been alive and hence, the amount would come to Rs.40,000/-. In the facts of the present case, appropriate multiplier would be 17 and hence, the amount would come to Rs.6,80,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 17 = Rs.6,80,000/-). The claimants are also entitled to Rs.55000/- towards non-pecuniary heads. In all, the amount of compensation would come to Rs.7,35,000/-. 10. So far as MACP Nos.41 of 1995 and 8 of 1995 are concerned, learned advocate Mr.Mehta for the appellant has fairly conceded that there is a question of reducing one multiplier only. Therefore, learned advocate Mr.Mehta for the appellant has submitted that let the award may remain as it is because there is a dispute as regards to very meager amount. The impugned judgment and award has been passed by learned Tribunal before two decades and considering the facts of the present case, the impugned judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal in MACP Nos.41 of 1995 and 8 of 1995 stands remain unaltered. 11. So far as MACP No.46 of 1995 is concerned, deceased Bharatsinh Bhikhubhai Jadeja was serving as Police Constable at Jamnagar and in the claim petition, it is pleaded that he was earning Rs.2200/- per month. In order to prove his income, salary certificate is produced wherein Rs.2195/- is mentioned as his salary, i.e. nearly to Rs.2200/-. The age of the deceased is pleaded to be 30 years. No documentary evidence in the nature of birth certificate is produced, but the same was reflected in the PM report. Therefore, the deceased was falling in the age group of 26 to 30 years. Considering his age, 50% rise is required to be added for arriving at prospective rise in income. Hence, the amount would come to Rs.3300/- (Rs.2200 + Rs.1100 = Rs.3300/-). As the deceased was unmarried, in view of the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma’s case, 1/2 amount is required to be deducted for his personal and living expenses if the deceased would have been alive. Hence, the amount would come to Rs.3300/- (Rs.2200 + Rs.1100 = Rs.3300/-). As the deceased was unmarried, in view of the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma’s case, 1/2 amount is required to be deducted for his personal and living expenses if the deceased would have been alive. So, the amount would come to Rs.1650/- per month (Rs.3300 % 2 = Rs.1650/-) and Rs.19800/- per year (Rs.1650 x 12 = Rs.19800/-). In the facts of the present case, appropriate multiplier would be 17. So, the amount would come to Rs.3,36,600/- and the claimants are also entitled to Rs.55000/- towards loss to estate and funeral expenses. In all, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.3,91,600/-. 12. For the reasons recorded above, First Appeal No.2398 of 2004 and First Appeal No.2400 of 2004 succeed in part. The amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is reduced from Rs.10,95,000/- to Rs.7,35,000/- and from Rs.6,48,000/- to Rs.3,91,600/- in First Appeal No.2398 of 2004 and First Appeal No.2400 of 2004 respectively. Rest of the judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal remains unaltered including liability of payment. If any excess amount is deposited by the appellant – insurance company, the same shall be refunded to the appellant – insurance company along with the interest accrued on such excess amount. Record and Proceedings, if any, lying here be sent back to the concerned lower court forthwith. No costs. Orders accordingly