JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. As this group of six appeals is arising out of the common judgment and award dated 10.7.2002 delivered by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Panchmahal at Godhra in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.8 of 1990 and allied claim petitions, they have been heard together and decided by this common judgment. 2. By way of preferring First Appeal Nos.879, 880 and 881 of 2003, the appellant – S.T.Corporation has, inter alia, contended that learned Tribunal has failed to consider contributory negligence on the part of driver of offending tempo No.GRY 4564. It is further contended that learned Tribunal has also wrongly attributed the sole negligence on the part of driver of the S.T.Corporation. It is contended that learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation in the aforesaid claim petition which is excessive in nature and the same is required to be reduced, as such. 3. The original claimants have preferred First Appeal Nos.892, 893 and 894 of 2003, inter alia, contending that compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is lower on side which is required to be enhanced, as such. 4. The short facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the accident had occurred on 9.12.1989 at about 11.00 a.m. on the Highway leading from Godhra to Vadodara within the limits of Panchmahal District. The vehicles involved in the accident were S.T. Bus No.GRY 9459 and Motor Tempo No. GRY 4564 wherein the claimants have sustained injuries and two persons have expired. Ultimately, the claimants have filed different claim petitions before learned Tribunal. 5. Heard Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned advocate for the S.T. Corporation, Mr.Mohsin Hakim, learned advocate for Mr. MTM Hakim, learned advocate for the original claimants and Mr. V.C. Thomas, learned advocate for United India Insurance Company Limited. Though served, none appears for rest of the respondents. 6. It reveals from the Record and Proceedings that deceased Mastubhai Habibbhai Belim was driving Tempo No.GRY 4564 involved in the accident in question and, therefore, the S.T. Corporation has raised the dispute as regards to apportioning contributory negligence on the part of the driver of Tempo No.GRY 4564 involved in the accident in question. 7. Learned Tribunal, after hearing and appreciation of the evidence available on record, has recorded the finding that the incident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of driver of the S.T. Bus No.GRY 9459. 8. 7. Learned Tribunal, after hearing and appreciation of the evidence available on record, has recorded the finding that the incident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of driver of the S.T. Bus No.GRY 9459. 8. In order to appreciate the contention raised by learned advocate for the S.T. Corporation, this Court has gone through the impugned judgment and award as well as material made available in the nature of paper book to this Court. 9. On the point of negligence, the claimants have examined the eye witness to the incident i.e. Ibrahim Yusuf at Exh.71 who happens to be passenger in S.T. Bus No.GRY 9459. He has deposed that the driver of the S.T. Bus was driving the bus nearby the place of accident in very excessive speed and was cautioned, but the driver did not reduce the speed of the bus and driven the bus on wrong side and ultimately dashed with Tempo No. GRY 4564 which was coming from the opposite direction. Nothing worth has come out from his cross examination. 9.1 One another witness Mustak Habibbhai had also been examined vide Exh.84. He has deposed in the same manner as has been deposed by Ibrahim Yusuf at Exh.71 though he was travelling in the tempo. The third eye witness Mahesh Mukesh had been examined at Exh.93 who was also passenger in the S.T. Bus. He has deposed that the driver of the bus was driving in rash and negligent manner and he driven the bus in wrong side and collided with the tempo which was coming from the opposite direction. 10. Over and above the aforesaid three witnesses, the claimants have also produced the FIR lodged by one Gulam Rasul before Kalol Police Station which has been produced vide Exh.216. He lodged the complaint soon-after the accident wherein he has narrated that the driver of the S.T. Bus driven the bus on the wrong side and dashed with the tempo No. GRY 4564 which was coming from the opposite direction and the driver of the S.T. Bus committed the accident. He lodged the complaint soon-after the accident wherein he has narrated that the driver of the S.T. Bus driven the bus on the wrong side and dashed with the tempo No. GRY 4564 which was coming from the opposite direction and the driver of the S.T. Bus committed the accident. The panchnama of the scene of accident has also been produced at Exh.68 wherein it clearly reveals that the road at the place of incident was having 22 feet width; from the place of accident, Kalol city is situated on the northern side and Halol city is situated on the southern side; the tempo in question was found on its extreme left side facing towards Kalol and the S.T. Bus was found on its wrong side in collided position with the aforesaid tempo. The claimants have also produced colour photographs which reveal the impact point as well as position of the vehicles involved in the accident at Exhs.42 to 43. The photographs also clearly narrate that the S.T. Bus was found on the wrong side in collided position with the aforesaid tempo in question. 11. This Court has perused the aforesaid evidence of eye witnesses, FIR, Panchnama, photographs as well as map produced before learned Tribunal. On over all appreciation of the evidence on record, it clearly reveals that at the place of incident, the road runs from north to south. On the northern side, Kalol city is situated and on the southern side, Halol city is situated. Indisputably, tempo in question was proceeding towards Kalol. Therefore, western half of the road is left side for the driver of the tempo, whereas S.T. Bus was proceeding towards Halol from Kalol. Therefore, eastern half of the road is left side so far as the driver of the S.T. Bus is concerned. Indisputably, oral evidence of the eye witnesses, FIR, Panchnama as well as photographs clearly mention that Tempo No. GRY 4564 was found on the extreme left on western edge of the road, whereas the bus was found on its wrong side in collided condition i.e. western side of the road though the driver of the bus was required to drive on the eastern half of the road. In this view of the matter, the evidence on record is clearly indicative of negligence on the part of the driver of the S.T. Bus and while driving the bus, the driver of the bus appears to have lost control over the driving and dashed with coming tempo and collided with it and thereby committed accident. The said aspect is clearly indicative of 100% negligence on the part of the driver of the S.T. Corporation. 12. Upon re-assessment of the evidence on record, this Court also finds that the incident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the S.T.Corporation and hence, the argument advanced by learned advocate Ms. Bhatt for the S.T. Corporation to fasten contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the tempo in question is not acceptable. Therefore, the finding recorded by learned Tribunal is in accordance with the evidence on record which does not call for any interference by this Court so far as negligence is concerned. 13. So far as First Appeal No.892 of 2003 is concerned, on the point of quantum, the claimants have averred the age of deceased Mastubhai Habibbhai Belim to be 30 years in the claim petition. No documentary evidence was produced to prove the age, but learned Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased to be 33 years relying upon estimated age mentioned in the PM report. So, the deceased was falling in the age group of 31 to 35 years. The claimants have pleaded that the deceased was used to earn Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 5000/- per month as he was having four vehicles and was engaged in driving as well as looking after his transport business. In order to prove the ownership of the vehicle, the claimants have produced the certificate from Exhs.110 to 113. The claimants have also produced R.C. Book which stands registered in the name of the deceased. No concrete evidence as regards to the income of the deceased has been tendered by the claimants, but taking into consideration his occupation as transport operator as well as he was having driving licence, learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 4000/- per month which appears to be genuine considering the year of accident as well as his occupation as transport operator. 4000/- per month which appears to be genuine considering the year of accident as well as his occupation as transport operator. Learned Tribunal has also taken into consideration the prospective rise to the extent of 50% as laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt) v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and hence, the amount would come to Rs. 6000/- (Rs.4000/- + Rs. 2000/- = Rs. 6000/-) per month. As the claimants are seven in number, 1/5th amount is required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased if he would have been alive which comes to Rs. 1200/-. So, the amount would come to Rs. 4800/- per month (Rs.6000 – Rs. 1200 = Rs. 4800/-). As the deceased was falling in the age group of 31 to 35 years, appropriate multiplier would be 16 and hence, the amount would come to Rs. 57600/- per annum (Rs.4800 x 12 = Rs. 57,600/-) and the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 9,21,600/- (Rs.57,600/- x 16 = 9,21,600/-). The claimants are also entitled to receive Rs. 55,000/- towards other heads. In all, the amount of compensation would come to Rs.9,76,600/-. 14. In rest of the appeals, this Court has re-calculated the amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal in the presence of learned advocates for the respective parties. On being making re-calculation, there appears difference of meager amount and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to either slash down or to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal. 15. For the reasons recorded above, First Appeal Nos.879, 880, 881, 893 and 894 of 2003 stand dismissed. 15.1 First Appeal No.892 of 2003 succeeds and the amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.6,90,000/- to Rs. 9,76,600/-. The S.T.Corporation is directed to deposit the deficit amount of enhanced amount within a period of two months from today before the learned Tribunal. The S.T. Corporation is also directed to pay interest on the enhanced amount at the rate of 9% from the date of claim petition till realization. On deposit of the aforesaid amount, learned Tribunal shall disburse the same to the claimants as per its discretion on proper identification and verification. Record and Proceedings, if any, lying here be sent back to the concerned lower court forthwith. No costs. Order accordingly.