ORDER : The National Insurance Company has questioned the legality of the judgment/award dated 18th July, 2009 passed by 1st Additional District Judge-Presiding Officer-Additional Motor Vehicle Claim Tribunal, Hazaribag in Claim Case No.150 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the Insurance Company (the appellant) has been directed to pay a total compensation amount of Rs.8,16,000/- with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim case to the claimants within two months and a right has been given to the appellant-insurance company to recover the amount from the owner of the truck the opposite party no.1 with certain other conditions. 2. The claimants, in the court below, were widow of Mahesh Das (the deceased), one minor daughter, one minor son. The mother and father of the deceased were impleaded as proforma respondent in the court below. At the time of accident, the deceased was 25 years old. On the fateful day i.e. 24.08.2003 while the deceased Mahesh Das alongwith two other persons were going on a motorcycle and reached near the turning of Chouparan Ghati at 3.30 p.m., one truck, being driven rashly and negligently which was coming from Barhi side, dashed the said motorcycle bearing no. BR-42-2109 of the deceased. All the three persons namely Mahesh Das, Jugesh Ravidas and Ram Pratap Singh riding on the motorcycle died on the spot. The driver of the offending truck bearing no. CG 04-ZC-7803 fled away immediately after the accident. The Chowkidar of the said area, Kishun Paswan, who was on patrolling duty saw the accident and lodged the F.I.R. being Chouparan P.S. Case No. 161 of 2003 under Sections 279/304A/427 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending vehicle and police after thorough investigation, submitted the chargesheet under the aforesaid provisions against the accused Sita Ram Singh (the driver of the said vehicle). The claimants filed the instant claim petition for grant of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of death of Mahesh Das, who was earning Rs.4000/- per month from Jan Vitran Pranali shop, Rs.3000/- per month from work of contractor and Rs.2000/- per month from poultry. 3. After issuance of summons/notice, insurance company appeared in court below and filed the written statement denying the claim and took the plea that it is the case of contributory negligence and the owner of the two wheeler and the insurance party have not been made parties. 3. After issuance of summons/notice, insurance company appeared in court below and filed the written statement denying the claim and took the plea that it is the case of contributory negligence and the owner of the two wheeler and the insurance party have not been made parties. The deceased Mahesh Das, who was driving the vehicle, had no driving licence and no documents has been produced by the claimant in support of the claim. The driving licence nor any document in support of income of the deceased have been produced by the claimants. The insurance company has only admitted the fact that the offending truck was insured with its company but the accident did not take place on account of rash and negligent driving of offending truck rather it was the negligence on the part of the deceased, who was driving motorcycle. At the instance of insurance company-appellant, a petition under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act was filed in the court below. 4. The father of the deceased Jagdish Das, who was impleaded as proforma respondent also filed his written statement and pleaded that he has no objection if the entire claim amount is given in favour of the claimants. 5. The claim tribunal after considering the evidence and the pleadings of the parties, directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount of Rs.8,16,000/- with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim case and held that the insurance company has a right to recover this amount from the owner of the offending vehicle, who has not appeared in the case and the case was decided Exparte against the owner. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company assailing the impugned judgment/award as perverse and bad in law, seriously contended that the learned tribunal without considering the issue of contributory negligence of the driver of the motorcycle, held the appellant-insurance company liable to pay the compensation amount. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company assailing the impugned judgment/award as perverse and bad in law, seriously contended that the learned tribunal without considering the issue of contributory negligence of the driver of the motorcycle, held the appellant-insurance company liable to pay the compensation amount. It was further submitted that the driving licence of the person, who was driving the motorcycle, was not produced though the tribunal held that three persons were riding on the motorcycle which is a clear violation of Traffic Safety Rule and that without any chit of paper available on record to show the additional income of the deceased, other than the income from Jan Vitran Pranali shop, calculated the just compensation on the basis of monthly income of Rs.4000/- from Jan Vitran Pranali shop besides adding a notional income of Rs.2000/- per month. Hence, the impugned award is not a just compensation as defined by the Hon’ble Apex Court in several judgments. 7. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel representing the claimants supported the impugned award but seriously contended that the court below while awarding the compensation has not considered that the claimants were also entitled for loss of consortium and cost of funeral which are the statutory payment in terms of the schedule. 8. Before I enter into the veils of the submissions of the learned counsels, it is necessary to refer the word “just compensation”. The expression “just compensation” has been explained in Sarla Verma Vs. D.T.C., (2009) 6 SCC 121 holding that the compensation awarded by the tribunal does not become “just compensation” merely because the tribunal considers it to be just. “Just compensation” is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. 9. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company was that not a chit of paper was produced by the claimants to show earning of Rs.4000/- per month of the deceased from Jan Vitran Pranali shop besides Rs.3000/- per month from the work of contractor and Rs.2000/- per month from poultry firm. 9. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company was that not a chit of paper was produced by the claimants to show earning of Rs.4000/- per month of the deceased from Jan Vitran Pranali shop besides Rs.3000/- per month from the work of contractor and Rs.2000/- per month from poultry firm. Apparently, the learned claim tribunal while considering this issue has relied on Ext.3 the attested copy of the licence issued under Jan Vitran Pranali shop by the Government and from perusal of Ext.3, it would appear that the said licence was granted in the name of the deceased and he was carrying the business of Jan Vitran Pranali shop. Ext.4 was challan deposited by the deceased Mahesh Das for renewal of his licence of Jan Vitran Pranali and the witnesses examined by the claimants have all testified that the deceased was earning Rs.4000/- from Jan Vitran Pranali shop. The witnesses have also testified that the total income of the deceased was Rs.10,000/- but besides the said Ext.3 and 4 showing the business of Jan Vitran Pranali, no document has been brought on record by the claimants to show the income of deceased from other sources also. While calculating the compensation, the learned tribunal has not only considered Rs.4000/- per month from Jan Vitran Pranali shop, as income of the deceased but a notional income of Rs.2000/- per month from other sources like the work of contractor and the poultry firm, which cannot sustain in absence of any document. 10. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that it is a case of contributory negligence on the part of the owner of two wheeler and as the owner of two wheeler and the insurance company have not been impleaded as parties, the claim is not maintainable. In this respect, I find that no evidence has been brought on record by the appellant-insurance company that there was any negligence on the part of the driver of the two wheeler vehicle. Even it was not the pleading of the insurance company in his written statement that the driver of the two wheeler was driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently. Even it was not the pleading of the insurance company in his written statement that the driver of the two wheeler was driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently. It appears from the impugned award that the issue of contributory negligence was not raised in the court below and accordingly no issue was framed and the claim tribunal has held that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and dashed the motorcycle. The insurance company has not brought any evidence on record in rebuttal that the driver of the two wheeler was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and secondly even no witness was examined on behalf of the insurance company in support of the pleading of contributory negligence. I have gone through the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants. The witnesses have very specifically testified that the truck was coming from opposite direction rashly and negligently and dashed the motorcycle as a result of which all the three persons riding on the motorcycle died on spot. All the witnesses have clearly testified that the offending truck was at fault and the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck. 11. On appreciation of evidence, the following factors are clear from the evidence that: (i) the driver of the offending truck was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, (ii) it was the truck which hit the motorcycle and not vice versa, (iii) the motorcycle was coming on its own side. Under such circumstance, it is clear that it was because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the truck that the accident took place. Obviously, hit given by the truck was so powerful that three persons riding on the motorcycle died on the spot. Hence, I have no hesitation in holding that there was any question of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle and it was solely the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending truck that the accident took place. I further find that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that there was any fault or negligence on the part of the driver of the two wheeler. I further find that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that there was any fault or negligence on the part of the driver of the two wheeler. Even if there was any breach on the part of the driver of two wheeler, such breach had to be proved by the appellant-insurance company but nothing has been brought on record. As regard, to the ‘just compensation’ as laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra) and further explained in Santoshi Devi Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., (2012) 6 SCC 421 the compensation has to be reassessed as follows: Sl. No. Heads Calculation I The monthly income Rs.4000/-­ II 1/3 of monthly income to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased Rs.4000– Rs.1333 = Rs.2667/-­ III Compensation after multiplier of 18 is applied on the basis of (Sarla Verma case) the deceased was 25 years of age at the time of accident Rs.2667 X 12 X 18 = Rs.5,76,072/-­ IV Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/-­ V Loss of care and guidance for the two minor children Rs.50,000/-­ VI Funeral Expenses Rs.10,000/-­ Total Compensation amount Rs.7,36,072/­- 12. The above compensation amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum as awarded by the claim tribunal from the date of filing of the claim case till its realization. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment/award of the tribunal is set aside. The insurance company is directed to pay the total compensation of Rs.7,36,072/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim case till realization. The insurance company is directed to prepare a demand draft of 50% of the total compensation amount in the name of the opposite party no.1Madodari Devi, the widow of the deceased Mahesh Das and another demand draft of the balance amount of 50% of the total compensation amount in equal proportion, in the name of the two minor children and the mother of the deceased within two months from the date of this order and the drafts shall be deposited in nationalized bank in consultation with the opposite party no.1 till the two minor attains majority, failing which the claimants opposite parties shall recover the compensation amount through the process of court.