JUDGMENT : G.R. Moolchandani, J. This appeal has been directed against the award dated 9.12.1998 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer in Civil Misc. Case No. 114/1997. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 80,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum in favour of the appellants. 2. Feeling aggrieved with the assessment of compensation and findings of the Tribunal, the appellants have come up through this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement. 3. Brief facts relating to the fateful accident indicates that in the intervening night of 15.2.1997 and 16.2.1997, deceased Girdhari Ram was driving Nishan truck No. RJ-19G-8474 from Bucchkalla to Jodhpur Mandi and near village Dangiyawas a lift truck No. RJ-19G-5167 came from opposite direction rashly and negligently and dashed with Nishan truck, resultantly Nishan truck was completely damaged and the occupants including its driver Girdhari Ram sustained injuries, who was rushed to the hospital, where he succumbed to injuries and a F.I.R. No. 29/1997 dated 16.2.1997 under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. was lodged against the lift-truck driver Bhanwar Lal and after the demise of the injured Girdhari Ram charge-sheet No. 15 dated 27.2.1997 under Sections 279, 337 and 304A I.P.C. was filed against Bhanwar Lal S/o Neta Ram, driver of the offending truck RJ-19G-5167. The learned Tribunal decided equal contributory negligence of both drivers without any evidence to this effect but only on the basis of self conclusions drawn by dint of spot map and thus, deducted 50% of the award and passed award of Rs. 80,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, which has been assailed by the appellants through the appeal under hand. 4. While advancing the arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that Tribunal has wrongly decided issue Nos. 1 and 7 and has wrongly held, appellant liable for the said negligence in a contributory way. 80,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, which has been assailed by the appellants through the appeal under hand. 4. While advancing the arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that Tribunal has wrongly decided issue Nos. 1 and 7 and has wrongly held, appellant liable for the said negligence in a contributory way. Site-plan being a non-substantive piece of evidence, without corroboratory evidence cannot be a basis of positive evidence and has contended that after the impact of collision, the spot scenario is liable to be changed, the impact of the accident may even change the direction of the vehicle involved, unless direct and corroborative evidence is not there, the site plan cannot be read so, finding to this effect is perverse and it is wrong to hold victim liable for contributory negligence, putting reliance on verdict reported in 2011 R.A.R. 62 (SC) Mohd. Ameeruddin & Anr. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 166 Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. v. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors., 2015 DNJ (SC) 589 Munna Lal Jain & Anr. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors., 2013 AACJ 2849 M. Mansoor and another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., the learned Counsel has submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly quantified the compensation in lower side, the allowance which is a part of wages has been ignored despite un-rebutted evidence produced by the appellant. The income is quantified in a lower way and even future prospects for enhancement of salary to the tune of 50% of the income has also not been awarded and the multiplier of 13 has been applied, which looking to the age of victim, ought to have been of 18. in view of Sarla Devi's case. Learned Counsel has further contended that multiplier ought to be applied as per age of the deceased and not on the basis of age of dependent parents as laid down in Munna Lal Jain's case. Hence, the appeal may be allowed and the award passed be enhanced as requested. 5. in view of Sarla Devi's case. Learned Counsel has further contended that multiplier ought to be applied as per age of the deceased and not on the basis of age of dependent parents as laid down in Munna Lal Jain's case. Hence, the appeal may be allowed and the award passed be enhanced as requested. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered the aspect of contributory negligence on the basis of facts and evidence, merely passing remarks could not be a ratio to discard the evidence with respect to the doctrine of res ipsa locquitor and Parcha Mauka has rightly been given weight-age by the Tribunal, moreover Pracha Mauka is not a document filed by the insurance Company, but it is a document which has been relied upon by the appellant-claimant. He has further submitted that both the vehicles were badly damaged in head-on collusion and were overturned, the impact was itself indicative to establish contributory negligence. Issue Nos. 1 and 7 have rightly been decided by the Tribunal. There were no skid marks on the road an indication to show that the brake were not applied by any of the two vehicles and in view of the evidence produced before the Tribunal, it has passed the award correctly and the accident relates way back to the year 1997 in view of which the income of Rs. 2000/- per month was of a better value. The Tribunal has committed no error in determining contributory negligence of both sides to the tune of 50% respectively and has thus correctly awarded compensation. There being no reason to enhance the damage, the appeal be dismissed. 6. A perusal of the material available on the record of Lower Court reveals that no evidence has been adduced from the side of respondents and three witnesses namely Ali Khan, who was a labour and occupant of the truck, AW 2 Rahim Khan, who too was an occupant and labour of the truck, have been produced apart from the appellant Jetha Ram, father of the deceased. Ali Khan an injured, who has also got the F.I.R. lodged has explicitly said: eSa e`rd fxj/kkjh dks tkurk gwWaA fxj/kkjh fu'kku Vªd pykrk FkkA tks/kiqj d`f"k e.Mh esa fdlh lsB dh fu'kku Vªd pykrk FkkA ge Hkh mlh Vªd ij etnwjh djrs FksA eSa] jghe o fxj/kkjh nq"dyka ls 17&18 ekg iwoZ ewax eksaB Hkjdj okfil tks/kiqj eaMh vk jgs Fks tks djhc jkr dks Ms<+ ct jgs FksA Mkafx;kokl ls tks/kiqj dh rjQ 16 ehy Vkadk ds ik, vk, rc lkeus ls ,d fyV Vªd [k.Mksa ls Hkjk gqvk vk;k ftls Hkaojyky pyk jgk FkkA Hkaojyky lkeus ls xyr lkbZM ls rstxfr ls vk jgk FkkA ftlus MªkbZoj lkbZM esa vkdj gekjh fu'kku xkM+h ds Vddj ekjh ftlls fu'kku Vªd myV x;h o fc[kj x;h ,oa esjs jghe o fxj/kkjh ds pksVsa vkbZA gesa tks/kiqj egkRek xka/kh gkWLihVy esa ykdj HkrhZ djk;kA fxj/kkjh ds pksV xaHkhj izd`fr dh Fkh tks jM+s dj jgk FkkA ftls egkRek xka/kh gkWLihVy esa HkrhZ djokus ds ckn gkWLihVy esa gh e`R;q gks x;hA ;g nq?kZVuk Hkaojyky dh ykijokgh o xyrh ls gqbZA fxj/kkjh dks fu'kku Vªd ekfyd :0 2250@& izfrekg osru ,oa [kkuk [kpkZ vyx ls nsrk FkkA eSaus o fxj/kkjh us mDr fu'kku Vªd ij 6&7 lky rd lkFk dke fd;k FkkA lsB fxj/kkjh dks ru[okg esjs lkeus nsrk Fkk vkSj ge jkr fnu ,d lkFk mBrs cSBrs FksA bl nq?kZVuk dh fjiksVZ iqfyl Fkkuk Mkafx;kokl esa esjs }kjk dh x;h FkhA 7. Likewise another injured eye-witness Rahim Khan has also narrated similar kind of utterance and has said: ^^vkt ls 17&18 ekg iwoZ e`rd fxj/kkjh ds lkFk fu'kku xkM+h ls cqldyka ewax eksaB dh xkM+h Hkjdj ykus ds fy;s x;s FksA bl xkM+h dks fxj/kkjh pyk jgk FkkA jkf= ds djhc Ms< cts vtesj tks/kiqj ekxZ ls tks/kiqj dh rjQ vk jgs Fks rc 16 ehy Vkadk ds ikl lkeus ls ,d fyV xkM+h cgqr rstxfr o ykijokghiwoZd vk jgh FkhA fu'kku xkM+h ftlesa ge cSBs Fks og viuh lgh lkbZM esa lkekU; jrkj ls py jgh Fkh rc fyV MªkbZoj Hkaojyky us fu'kku xkM+h ds MªkbZoj lkbZM esa VDdj ekjh ftlls fu'kku xkM+h mVy x;h rFkk fyV Vddj ekjdj vkxs tkdj iyVh [kk x;hA bl nq?kZVuk esa esjs] vyh[kksa o fxj/kkjh ds pksVsa vkbZ FkhA fxj/kkjh ds pksVsa T;knk yxh Fkh ftls egkRek xka/kh vLirky esa HkrhZ djk;k Fkk tgka ij mldh e`R;q gks x;hA eSa fxj/kkjh ds lkFk fiNys 2&3 lky ls lkFk esa etnwjh djrk Fkk blfy;s mls tkurk gwWaA fxj/kkjh dks :0 2250@& osru o [kkuk [kpkZ vyx feyrk FkkA fu'kku xkM+h ftl ij fxj/kkjh MªkbZoj Fkk] x.kir tSu dh FkhA ;g nq?kZVuk Hkaojyky dh xyrh ls gqbZA eSa fxj/kkjh ds ikl gh [kkyh lkbZM esa dsfcu esa cSBk FkkA** Nothing weakening the evidence has come out from the cross-examination. AW-3 Jetha Ram has said that his son Girdhari Ram was of 22 years and was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 2,250/- and was also getting Rs. 35/- per day towards eating allowance; he has also said that there is none else to earn for me and for my wife Paru. In cross-examination, he has said that my son used to render the money earned to me, he has also said that all my sons are earning and living separate and he has denied that he was not being given the earning by Girdhari Ram. 8. In cross-examination, he has said that my son used to render the money earned to me, he has also said that all my sons are earning and living separate and he has denied that he was not being given the earning by Girdhari Ram. 8. Evaluation and appreciation of the above evidence is suffice to establish that the driver of the dashing vehicle RJ-19G-5167 lift truck was negligent for causing the accident and both AW-1 Ali Khan and AW-2 Rahim Khan, who were on the truck and were sitting in the vehicle along with the deceased Girdhari Ram being labour have candidly said that the driver Bhanwar Lal was negligent and dashed with the truck of the deceased at a high speed in rash and negligent way and to controvert this aspect of the evidence, no evidence has been produced before the Tribunal, while dealing with the findings of Issue Nos. 1 and 7 the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in arriving at a conclusion, merely on the basis of observing the sketch as shown in the spotmap Ex. 3 to be equally negligent and liable thus has equally divided the quantum which is legally impermissible and is liable to be corrected. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2013) 9 SCC 166 Jiju Kuruvila and others v. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors. and connected matters has held in head note (D) that such an inference without any positive evidence to this effect cannot be drawn and has laid:- "Head-on collision between car and bus - Contributory negligence on the part of victim - Drawing inference as to - Position of vehicles after accident as shown in "scene mahazar" - Relevance of - Held, in absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no inference can be drawn as to contributory negligence on the part of victim merely on basis of such "scene mahazar" 10. So, the findings to this effect as arrived at by the learned Tribunal are liable to be reversed. Consequently, the compensation which is payable is liable to be saddled on respondents in its totality. So, finding to this effect is hereby reversed accordingly. The larned Tribunal has also committed error while deciding issue Nos. So, the findings to this effect as arrived at by the learned Tribunal are liable to be reversed. Consequently, the compensation which is payable is liable to be saddled on respondents in its totality. So, finding to this effect is hereby reversed accordingly. The larned Tribunal has also committed error while deciding issue Nos. 5 and 6 while deciding that the appellant Jetha Ram, the father of the deceased Girdhari Ram was not dependent on his deceased son because there is a positive evidence available on record, since Jetha Ram has narrated that he was dependent on his son who, used to bring and render his earnings to him but his other sons are earning and living separately. It is pertinent to mention that Girdhari Ram was unmarried and learned Tribunal has held that the appellant Smt. Paru mother of the deceased was his sole dependent, so finding of learned Tribunal pertaining to non-dependency upon the deceased of his father Jetha Ram is altered and both the appellants i.e. mother and father of the deceased are held to be dependents of the deceased and further entitled to receive the compensation equally. 11. So far as the earning and salary of the deceased is concerned, all the witnesses have categorically stated that Girdhari Ram was getting a salary of Rs. 2,250/- per month and apart from it, Rs. 35/- daily allowance towards eating. 12. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the methodology of multiplier has laid down in para 19 of the judgment:- 19. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charliem 2005(10) SCC 720 , this Court noticed that in respect of claims under Section 166 of the MV Act, the highest multiplier applicable was 18 and that the said multiplier should be applied to the age group of 21 to 25 years (commencement of normal productive years) and the lowest multiplier would be in respect of persons in the age group of 60 to 70 years (normal retiring age). This was reiterated in Tamil Nadu State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Rajapriya, 2005(6) SCC 236 and Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Bala, 2006(6) SCC 249 . This was reiterated in Tamil Nadu State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Rajapriya, 2005(6) SCC 236 and Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Bala, 2006(6) SCC 249 . The multipliers indicated in Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie (for claims under Section 166 of MV Act) is given below in juxtaposition with the multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule for claims under Section 163A of MV Act (with appropriate deceleration after 50 years) : Age of the deceased Multiplier scale as envisaged in Susamma Thomas Multiplier Scale of adopted by Trilok Chandra Multiplier scale in Trilok Chandra as clarified in Charlie Multiplier specified in second column the Table in II Schedule to MV Act Multiplier actually used in second in Schedule to MV Act (as seen from the quantum of compensation) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Upto 15 yrs - - - 15 20 15 to 20 yrs. 16 18 18 16 19 21 to 25 yrs. 15 17 18 17 18 26 to 30 yrs. 14 16 17 18 17 31 to 35 yrs. 13 15 16 17 16 36 to 40 yrs. 12 14 15 16 15 41 to 45 yrs. 11 13 14 15 14 46 to 50 yrs. 10 12 13 13 12 51 to 55 yrs. 9 11 11 11 10 56 to 60 yrs. 8 10 9 8 8 61 to 65 yrs. 6 8 7 5 6 Above 65 yrs. 5 5 5 5 5 13. With respect to quantification and damages applicable for future prospects, it has been observed by a three-judges Bench of the Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain & Anr. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors., 2015 (1) RAR 157 (SC): 8. On the issue of deduction towards personal and living expenses in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 , at paragraph-31, it was held that: "31. ... In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parents and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. ... In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parents and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father." 14. As far as future prospect are concerned, in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 , a three-judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case of self-employed persons also, if the deceased victim is below 40 years, there must be addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. To quote: "8. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi case actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid down in Sarla Verma case and to make it applicable also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years. The deceased being of the age of 30 years, 50% is the required addition." 15. In Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65 , the Apex Court held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to age of the deceased and not of the dependents and the correct use of multiplicand has also been enunciated. 16. In Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65 , the Apex Court held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to age of the deceased and not of the dependents and the correct use of multiplicand has also been enunciated. 16. In Sarla Verma's case, the question of deduction towards personal expenses was also considered by the Supreme Court and while dealing with this aspect, the Apex Court has laid down in para 14 as under: "14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practise is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view (hat where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (?rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (¼th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (?th) where the number of dependent family members exceed six." 17. The learned Tribunal has determined and decided that the monthly salary of the deceased Girdhari Ram was Rs. 2,000/- which appears to be reasonable but the learned Tribunal has not added enhancement incidence of prospective salary, to which the appellant-claimants are entitled. 18. In view of the aforesaid judgments, 50% of the prospective enhancement is to be added and awarded in addition to existing earning, so, while altering the findings of the learned Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the appellant-claimants are entitled to the following compensation:- 19. Monthly income of the deceased Girdhari Ram is Rs. 2,000/- per month. The deceased was a young chap of 26 years who is shown to be of 26 years vide Exhibit 4, autopsy report, would have earned more in future if he was alive, so this earning of Rs. 2,000/- is to be added with 50% of future and prospective enhancement of earnings, which comes to Rs. 2,000 x 50% = 1,000/- i.e. Rs. 2,000 + 1,000 = 3,000/- per month. 20. In view of Sarla Verma's case (supra), the applicable multiplicand which is applied is 17 on the basis of 26 years of age of the deceased and this annually amount comes to Rs. 2,000 x 50% = 1,000/- i.e. Rs. 2,000 + 1,000 = 3,000/- per month. 20. In view of Sarla Verma's case (supra), the applicable multiplicand which is applied is 17 on the basis of 26 years of age of the deceased and this annually amount comes to Rs. 3,000/- p.m. x 12 = 36,000/- p.a. and on the basis of multiplier 17 i.e. 36,000 x 17 this comes to Rs. 6,12,000/-. The deceased was a unmarried person, so he would have spent 50% of his income on himself, thus, this amount comes to Rs. 6,12,000 x 50% = 3,06,000/-. Apart from this, the appellant-claimants are entitled to get Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Rs. 4,000/- towards vehicle expenses spent to carry the injured to M.G. Hospital and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Consequently, the appellants are entitled to get compensation as under:- S. No. Particulars Compensation 1. Monthly income Rs. 2000 + 50% future prospects which comes to 2000 + 1000 = Rs. 3000 x 12 = 36.000 p.a and on the basis of multiplier 17, 36.000 x 17 Rs. 6,12,000 50% Personal expenses (-) Rs. 3,06,000 3,06,000 2. Loss of love and affection 50,000 3. Vehicle expenses 4,000 4. Funeral expenses 25,000 Total Rupees 3,85,000 21. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified as aforesaid and same will fetch interest at the rate of 9% per annum instead of 12% from the date of filing of petition till actual date of payment. Thus, the appellants are entitled for a compensation to the tune of If Rs. 3,85,000/- (Rupees three lakh eighty five thousand only). The compensation amount shall be divided equally between both the appellant-claimants. The amount already paid in terms of award/ interim award shall be adjusted. The respondent No. 3, Insurance Company shall deposit the aforesaid compensation within two months from today. Appellant-claimants will be at liberty to approach before the Tribunal for disbursement of the aforesaid compensation award accordingly. The appeal is allowed as above. There is no order as to costs.