JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants, who are the original claimants, have challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 14.01.2004 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.606 of 1995. 2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows: The appellants are the legal representative of deceased Inderlal Jaisinghani, who met with an accidental death on 30.06.1995. Appellant No.1 is the widow, appellant No.2 is the daughter and appellant Nos.3 and 4, are the sons of the deceased. 3. According to their case, on 30.06.1995 the deceased was proceeding on Luna at about 05:30 p.m. and waiting for clearance of the traffic signal near University Campus at old Amravati Naka square. After the green signal was given, he started proceeding on the road. At that time one truck bearing No.MP23 B6550 came from Ambazari side and was proceeding towards Amravati. It came from opposite direction and gave dash to the Luna of the deceased. As a result, Inderlal fell down, sustained the injuries and succumbed to these injuries. 4. As per the appellants, deceased was working as Small Saving Agent of Syndicate Bank and was also working as L.I.C. agent. From both these sources, he was earning income of Rs.12,000/per month. On account of his death, the appellants lost their only source of income and hence they claimed compensation of Rs.22,26,000/from respondent No.1the driver, the respondent No.2 registered owner and the respondent No.3the insurance company of the offending truck. 5. The petition proceeded ex parte against the respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 resisted the petition vide his written statement at Exh.17, contending inter alia that the cause of accident was the rash and negligent driving of the deceased and denied his liability to pay any amount of compensation to the appellants. 6. The respondent No.3 the Insurance Company has resisted the petition vide its written statement at Exh.10, raising a specific plea that respondent No.1the truck driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence and hence respondent No.3 was not liable to indemnify respondent No.2. An attempt was also made to contend that the amount of compensation claimed by the appellants is exorbitant. 7. The respondent Nos.5 and 6, are the parents of the deceased and they have supported the claim of the appellants. 8. An attempt was also made to contend that the amount of compensation claimed by the appellants is exorbitant. 7. The respondent Nos.5 and 6, are the parents of the deceased and they have supported the claim of the appellants. 8. On these rival pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues for its consideration. In support of their case, appellant No.1 examined herself and relied upon the various documentary evidence, like copy of the F.I.R. Exh.62, spot panchnama Exh.53, postmortem report. Exh.54 and the certificate issued by the Branch Manager of Syndicate Bank Exh.58, the certificate issued by Senior Branch Manager of L.I.C., Nagpur Exh.59, and three challans of Income Tax at Exh.16. The appellant also examined the witness by Dr. N. Ganesh, Bank Manager, Wadi Branch, Syndicate Bank to prove that the deceased was working as Small Saving Agent and earning commission at the rate of 3% of the total amount of his daily collection. 9. On appreciation of this oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal was pleased to hold that the deceased himself was also responsible for the accident that has occurred, and held his contributory negligence to the extent of 20%. Learned Tribunal further held that the respondent No.1 truck driver was not proved to be having valid and effective licence and accordingly learned Tribunal, though awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.7,96,600/inclusive of no fault liability with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization, directed the Insurance Company in the first instance to satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the appellants and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle namely respondent No.2. 10. Neither the owner of the vehicle i.e. respondent No.2 nor the Insurance Company has challenged the said award. Only the original claimants have challenged this Award, disputing the liability of the deceased in the accident to the extent of 20% and also seeking enhanced amount of compensation. 11. In this case involvement of both the vehicles in the accident is not disputed. The only disputed question is about the manner in which the accident has occurred. Admittedly, appellant No.1 who has examined herself was not an eye witness to the accident. Respondent No.1the driver of the truck has not examined himself though he was having an opportunity to do so. The only disputed question is about the manner in which the accident has occurred. Admittedly, appellant No.1 who has examined herself was not an eye witness to the accident. Respondent No.1the driver of the truck has not examined himself though he was having an opportunity to do so. No other eye witness is examined by either of the party. Therefore, one has to go by the contents of the F.I.R. and spot panchnama to ascertain the manner in which the accident has taken place. 12. At this stage, it may be stated that the Police had, after carrying out necessary inquiry registered the offence under Section 279, 304A of the I.P.C. against respondent No.1. The copy of the F.I.R. in the case is produced on record at Exh.62 and it clearly goes to show that it is lodged by an eye witness to the incident, namely the driver of one another truck, who at the relevant time was taking tea at Old Amravati Road Square. According to the said complaint, one truck was from coming from Ambazari side; one Traffic Constable was controlling the traffic in the square, he had stopped the traffic coming from Futala Talao and allowed the traffic coming from Ambazari Garden to proceed. Accordingly, the truck was proceeding towards Fultala Talao and while doing so, the truck came on the right side of the road and gave dash to red colour Luna. As a result of the dash, the Luna came below the wheels of the truck, the Luna driver fell on the ground and sustained injuries. 13. The spot panchnama Exh.53 also supports the contents of the F.I.R. Thus, neither the F.I.R. nor the spot panchnama in any way indicate that the deceased, who was driving the Luna, was in any way responsible for the accident that has occurred. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that the offending truck was just at the side of the deceased, and the moment signal was cleared both the vehicles proceeded further from the said place and soon thereafter deceased was dashed by the truck is not based on the evidence produced in the case. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in holding the deceased responsible to the extent of 20% in the said accident. Absolutely, no case of contributory negligence of the deceased is made out from the evidence produced on record. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in holding the deceased responsible to the extent of 20% in the said accident. Absolutely, no case of contributory negligence of the deceased is made out from the evidence produced on record. The finding to effect as recorded the learned Tribunal accordingly needs to be set aside. 14. As regards the next finding of the learned Tribunal that, at the time of accident respondent No.1 was not holding valid driving licence, it is based on the evidence of record, as the authentic document produced on record by the Insurance Company namely, the certificate issued by the District Transport Officer, Kamrup clearly demonstrating that motor driving licence No.7021188/ GHT produced in the Police papers is not issued by it. The said finding is not challenged by the respondent No.2 the owner of the offending truck also. Hence the said finding need not be disturbed in this appeal. 15. About the quantum of compensation, the appellant No.1 has examined herself and produced various documentary evidence on record. She has also examined the relevant witness from Syndicate Bank to prove the income of the deceased from the commission, as Pigmy Agent. Her evidence proves that deceased was also earning as Agent of L.I.C. After taking into consideration this documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has held that the total income of the deceased comes to the tune of Rs.98,000/per annum. However, in this respect, it can be seen that the average income of the deceased as reflected in the table furnished by appellant for three preceding years comes to Rs.1,20,000/per annum. Considering that there were six dependents on the income of the deceased, including his spouse, three minor children and parents then, as held in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , ¼ of the said amount is required to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Therefore, amount towards the financial loss of the deceased comes to Rs.82,000/per annum 16. Having regard then to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company 2013 (9) SCC 54 and having regard to the age of the deceased as 45 years, at the time of accident 30% of the additional income is required to be calculated towards his future prospects. Having regard then to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company 2013 (9) SCC 54 and having regard to the age of the deceased as 45 years, at the time of accident 30% of the additional income is required to be calculated towards his future prospects. Thus the total incomes comes to Rs.1,09,330/p.a. If it is multiplied by 15, which is the proper multiplier, as applied by the Tribunal, it comes to Rs.1,09,330 x 15 = Rs.16,13,250/towards the financial loss. 18. In view of the decision of Apex Court in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh 2013 ACJ 1403 (S.C.), the appellant No.1 will also become entitled to the amount of Rs.1,00,000/towards loss of consortium and Rs.1,00,000/towards loss of love, affection and estate, so far as appellant Nos.2 to 4 are concerned. The appellants are also entitled to the amount of Rs.25,000/towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total amount of Rs.18,38,250/. 19. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, considering the above said judgment of the Apex Court in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh, amount of interest needs to be enhanced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with proportionate costs. 21. The judgment and order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that appellants are held entitled for the total compensation of Rs.18,38,250/inclusive of amount of Rs.50,000/towards no fault liability, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 22. Rest of the judgment of the Tribunal stands confirmed. 23. Needless to state that, at first instance the Insurance Company is to pay this amount to appellants-claimants and is thereafter entitled to recover this amount from respondent No.2, the owner of the offending vehicle. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.