JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred by the claimants/appellants on two counts. Firstly the findings regarding contributory negligence of the deceased himself has been assailed and secondly, challenge has also been laid to the quantum of compensation as being inadequate. 2. The appellants had sought compensation on account of death of one Narinder alias Joginder, who died in a vehicle accident on 10.5.2008 at Pandoh. It was alleged that on the fateful day, the deceased was driving a Tractor from Aut side and when the same reached Pandoh, a Car bearing No. CH-02-1897 driven by respondent No. 2 in a very rash and negligent manner came from Mandi side, and abruptly turned to the wrong side of the road and hit the Tractor, as a result of which the Tractor turned turtle, resulting in head injuries to Narinder. The injured Narinder thereafter remained in coma from the date of accident till his death on 23.9.2008. The deceased was initially taken to Zonal Hospital Mandi, thereafter referred to PGI Chandigarh, where he remained indoor patient up to 1.6.2008. During this time, his throat was operated upon and thereafter he remained as outdoor patient at Zonal Hospital, Mandi and also has been taken time and again to PGI for regular checkup, however he could not survive and ultimately died. It was alleged that the deceased was hardly 35 years old and apart from driving the Tractor was also agriculturist and earning about Rs.12,000/- per month. The Tractor was owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. A sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was claimed by way of compensation. 3. Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed reply to the petition, wherein the claim was resisted on the ground of maintainability and non-joinder of necessary parties. The accident was though admitted, however, it was pleaded that it was the Tractor driver himself, who was at fault and therefore, FIR had been registered against him. It was further pleaded that the claim set up was highly excessive. 4. The Insurance Company i.e. respondent No. 3 in its reply resisted the petition on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license and the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 4. The Insurance Company i.e. respondent No. 3 in its reply resisted the petition on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license and the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. A plea of collusion between petitioner and respondents No. 1 and 2 was also taken. It also pleaded that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the deceased himself and it was contended that while deciding the quantum of compensation, the aspect of contributory negligent may also be considered. Like respondents No. 1 and 2, the Insurance Company also pleaded that the claim set up by the petitioner was highly excessive. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal below framed the following issues. “1. Whether on 10.5.2008 at 4.15 p.m. at Pandoh, the respondent No. 2 was driving car No. CH-02-1897 negligently and as such caused death of Narinder alias Joginder? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether driver of car No. CH-02-1897 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the car at the time of accident? OPR-3 4. Whether the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of tractor No. HP-22-4992? OPR 5. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of owner as party? OPR 6. Relief.” 6. The learned Tribunal after recording the evidence and evaluating the same held that the total compensation though worked out to Rs.6,00,000/-, but the claimants in view of the contributory negligence would only be entitled to half of the amount i.e. Rs.3,00,000/-. The claimants were further held entitled to the interest @ 9% per annum, simple from the date of petition till the deposit of the amount. 7. The claimants have assailed the award by filing the present appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal has fallen in error in holding the deceased to be negligent and such findings of contributory negligence are perverse and therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law. Even the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal has been assailed on the ground that the same is totally inadequate and therefore, deserves to be suitably enhanced. Even the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal has been assailed on the ground that the same is totally inadequate and therefore, deserves to be suitably enhanced. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. Contributory negligence. 8. In order to arrive at a finding regarding contributory negligence, the learned Tribunal clubbed issues No. 1 and 4 and proceeded to determine the same. The Tribunal found it difficult to believe that in case the Car was coming at a very high speed and had hit the Tractor, then the Tractor would not turned turtle, as the Tractor was a heavy vehicle than the Car and moreover, it was coming down hill, while the Car was coming uphill. 9. Adverting to the record, it would be noticed that the claimants examined one Krishan Kumar PW-3, who claimed to be an eye witness of the occurrence, as his shop was situated near the place of accident. According to him, he was going to his shop towards Pandoh Bazar when the accident took place in his presence. He stated that in so far as the driver of the Tractor was concerned, he had once stopped his Tractor to save the life of the Car driver, as a result of which the Tractor turned turtle and the deceased fell down. 10. Whereas, respondent No. 2, the driver of the Car entered into the witness box and admitted in cross-examination the suggestion that the Tractor driver suddenly applied brake, as a result of which the Tractor turned turtle. It was suggested to him that he was driving the vehicle at a speed of 70-80 KM per hour, but he denied the suggestion and stated that he was driving at a speed of 60 K.M. per hour. But there after added that he was driving at a speed of 40-45 K.M. per hour. 11. On the other hand the Insurance Company produced the Investigating Officer ASI Shakti Chand as RW-1, who stated that a criminal case under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC had been registered against the deceased and during the course of investigation, it was found that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligence driving of the Tractor by its driver Narender Kumar, who had later succumbed to the injuries. He denied that any brake had been applied. He denied that any brake had been applied. He stated so on the basis that he had not noticed any skid marks on the road. 12. From the aforesaid testimony of the witnesses, the conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal regarding contributory negligence cannot be faulted with. It is evidently clear that in case the Car had been driven at a high speed and hit the Tractor, then in normal circumstance, the Tractor which was a heavy vehicle would not have turned turtle, especially when it was coming down hill, whereas the Car was going uphill. Inadequate compensation. 13. The learned Tribunal below calculated the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,000/- per month and thereafter carried out deductions to the extent of 1/3 towards expenses on himself, the dependency of the family was thereafter calculated at Rs.2500/- per month or say Rs.30,000/- per annum. As the deceased was 35 years of age at the time of accident the multiplier of 16 was applied and in this manner the annual dependency was calculated as Rs.4,80,000/-. A further sum of Rs.15,000/- was allowed towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium and a further sum of Rs.5,000/-was allowed on account of funeral charges. In addition to the aforesaid, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of medical expenses was also awarded in favour of the claimants. Thus, total compensation was worked out at Rs.6,00,000/-, but since the deceased was found to be negligent, the claimants were held entitled to only 50% of the compensation. 14. In absence of any contemporaneous record to establish the income of the deceased, the findings that the deceased would be earning about Rs.4,000/- per month cannot be faulted with. However, the sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded on account of loss of love and affection and loss of consortium and further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral charges clearly appears to be grossly inadequate. 15. In Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others (2013) 9 SCC 54 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in addition to awarding compensation towards loss of dependency, awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards care and guidance for minor children and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. 16. In Jiju Kuruvila and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others (2013) 9 SCC 54 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in addition to awarding compensation towards loss of dependency, awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards care and guidance for minor children and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. 16. In Jiju Kuruvila and others Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and others (2013) 9 SCC 166 , apart from the compensation towards loss of dependency, the claimants were held entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- each towards loss of love and affection for the two children i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to wife. This was in addition to a sum of Rs.25,000/- already awarded towards funeral expenses. 17. Similarly, in Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and others (2013) 7 SCC 476 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in addition to compensation towards loss of dependency, ordered a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of consortium and loss of estate, Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of love and affection for the daughter and Rs.1,00,000/- each towards loss of love and affection for the widow and the mother, i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. 18. In Neeta w/o Kallappa Kadolkar and others Vs. Divisional Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Kolhapur, (2015) 3 SCC 590 , in addition to the compensation awarded towards loss of dependency, the claimants were held entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection (children), Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection (parents), Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. 19. In Shashikala and others Vs. Gangalakshmamma and another (2015) 9 SCC 150 , though there was a divergence of opinion of Hon’ble Judges in so far as the addition towards the future prospects in case of self employed claimant to be added towards compensation is concerned. However, there was unanimity regarding the quantum of compensation. The Bench after taking into consideration the judgments rendered in Rajesh and Jiju case (supra), proceeded to award in addition to the loss of dependency a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and in addition thereto a sum of Rs.25,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses. 20. In Surti Gupta Vs. 20. In Surti Gupta Vs. United India Insurance Company and other (2015) 11 SCC 457, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in addition to the loss of dependency, awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate, a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. 21. In Pushkar Mehra Vs. Brij Mohan Kushwaha and others (2015) 12 SCC 688, the Hon’ble three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in addition to the loss of dependency, awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, apart from a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and obsequies expenses. 22. Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, it would be clear that a sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal below towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium and further sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of funeral charges is not only grossly inadequate, but is also not in tune with the law. 23. Therefore, the claimants in addition to the aforesaid amounts as awarded by the learned Tribunal below are held entitled to the following amounts:- (i) Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000-15,000=Rs.85,000/- (ii) Loss of love and affection (for minor son) Rs.1,00,000/- (iii) Loss of love and affection to widow. Rs.1,00,000/- (iv). Loss of love and affection for mother Rs.1,00,000/- (v) Funeral expenses Rs.25,000- 5,000=Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.4,05,000/- 24. Since, the findings regarding contributory negligence of deceased have been affirmed, therefore, the claimants shall only be entitled to 50% of the enhanced compensation. In this view, the claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,02,500/- in addition to Rs.3,00,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal below. 25. In addition to this, the claimants shall also be entitled to simple interest on the additional amount @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the deposit of the amount in the Registry of this Court. The additional amount shall be apportioned among the appellants in the same manner, as had been apportioned by the learned Tribunal below. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their costs.