JUDGMENT : KH. NOBIN SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Th. Babloo with Shri R.K. Tomma and Shri. Joychandra, the learned counsels appearing for the appellants in MAC Appeal No. 5 of 2015 and for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in MAC Appeal No. 6 of 2015 and Shri K. Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 6 of 2015 and for the respondent in MAC Appeal No. 5 of 2015. 2. Both the above appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 20-06-2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manipur in MAC Case No. 20 of 2012 by which the learned Tribunal has held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation amounting to Rs. 39,26,841/- (Rupees thirty nine lakhs twenty six thousand eight hundred and forty one) only and the respondents therein are directed to pay the said amount inclusive of the interim compensation already drawn by the claimants with interest @ Rs. 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition. The appellants in MAC Appeal No. 5 of 2015 are the claimants and the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in MAC Appeal No. 6 of 2015 whereas the National Insurance Company is the sole respondent in MAC Appeal No. 5 of 2015 and the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 6 of 2015 and in order to avoid any confusion, they are being referred to hereinafter as "the claimants" and "the Insurance Company" respectively in accordance with their status as described before the Tribunal. MAC. App No. 5 of 2015 : 3.1. According to the claimants, they are the father and mother of the deceased namely, Sorokhaibam Vikram Singh and on 22-12-2011 at about 04:30 p.m. their son while coming back from Kolkata towards his office at HPC Ltd. Jamshedpur, Tatanagar in his Alto Car driven by his Driver was dashed on to by the offending truck driven in a high speed with rash and negligent driving coming from the opposite direction, as a result of which their son sustained serious bodily injuries and although he was immediately evacuated to Jhargram S.D. Hospital for medical treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on his way to hospital. At the time of the accident, their son who was aged about 28 years, was a bachelor working as Operation Officer cum Depot-in-charge of HPCL, Tatanagar/Jamshedpur, Jharkhand and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 1,48,356.53/- (Rupees one lakh forty eight thousand three hundred fifty six and point fifty three paisa). 3.2. A claim petition under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the claimants praying for an award of compensation for causing death of their son. In order to contest the petition, a written statement was filed by the Insurance Company contending that the claimants are required to prove all the claims and allegations stated in the claim petition. While admitting the occurrence of the accident, it has further been contended by the Insurance Company that since the Alto Car was coming from the opposite direction and dashed against the stationed Ashok Leyland Vehicle, the contributory negligence of the Alto Car was to be ascertained; that the amount claimed was highly exaggerated and that the method arrived at such a high figure was wrong and could not be acted upon. As the accident involved two vehicles which are insured with two separate insurance companies, it is for the claimants to establish the contributory negligence of both the vehicles and accordingly, the compensation amount was to be fixed as per its ratio of contributory negligence. 3.3. During the course of trial as many as six witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants and another six witnesses on behalf of the Insurance Company. After having appreciated the evidences on record, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that both the drivers of the offending truck and the Alto Car equally contributed in causing the accident and therefore, both the drivers were to be blamed for it. Applying the multiplier based on the age of the mother, the Tribunal directed that the Insurance Company should pay a sum of Rs.39,26,841/- (Rupees thirty nine lakh twenty six thousand eight hundred and forty one) inclusive of the interim compensation amount already withdrawn by the claimants with interest @ Rs.9% per annum from the date of filing the petition. 4. Applying the multiplier based on the age of the mother, the Tribunal directed that the Insurance Company should pay a sum of Rs.39,26,841/- (Rupees thirty nine lakh twenty six thousand eight hundred and forty one) inclusive of the interim compensation amount already withdrawn by the claimants with interest @ Rs.9% per annum from the date of filing the petition. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal, the claimants have preferred the instant appeal on the inter-alia grounds that the multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the age of the mother is erroneous; that in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, the age of the claimant's son ought to have been taken into account while adopting the multiplier and since the age of the claimant's son was 28 years, the correct multiplier ought to be 17 and not 13 as has been adopted by the learned Tribunal and that while deciding the quantum of contributory negligence of the said two drivers, the learned Tribunal had wrongly attributed to 50:50 without any basis. 5. The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the same judgment and order dated 20-06-2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manipur in MAC Case No. 20 of 2012. Since the facts and circumstances of both the cases remain the same, they are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. Both the appeals have arisen out of the same common judgment and order and therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 6. Since the facts and circumstances of both the cases remain the same, they are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. Both the appeals have arisen out of the same common judgment and order and therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 6. In the instant appeal, the Insurance Company challenged the judgment and order/award of the learned Tribunal on the inter-alia grounds that the findings of equal contributory negligence of both the drivers namely 50:50 by the learned Tribunal are without any basis; that the contributory negligence of the said two drivers assessed at 50:50, is not justified and it ought to have been reduced to 25:75 or 30:70; that the award @ Rs.9% per annum on the compensation amount calculated from the date of filing is not justified as the time taken for the entire proceeding was due to the adjournments being sought for on the part of the claimants; that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that two witnesses examined on behalf of the Insurance Company who corroborated their pleas that it was the Alto Car of the claimant's son which was driving at a rash and negligent speed and dashed against the already parked truck and that the learned Tribunal has further failed to appreciate the entirety of the evidence and discarding all the evidence of the eye witnesses, the learned Tribunal has arrived at its own findings which are perverse and are accordingly liable to be interfered and modified. 7. During the course of hearing, the learned counsels appearing for the parties have confined their arguments on two issues - one, relating to justification of the learned Tribunal adopting multiplier based on the age of the mother and two, relating to justification of the learned Tribunal in attributing equal contributory negligence to both the drivers. As regards the first issue, the learned counsels appearing for both the parties, to substantiate their contentions, have relied upon the same decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and therefore, this court's decision with respect to their rival contentions will depend upon what has been laid down therein. In Sarla Verma's case, the claimants who are the widow, three minor children, parents and grandfather, filed a claim for Rs. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and therefore, this court's decision with respect to their rival contentions will depend upon what has been laid down therein. In Sarla Verma's case, the claimants who are the widow, three minor children, parents and grandfather, filed a claim for Rs. 16 lakhs which was allowed in part by the learned Tribunal by taking the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs. 3,402/- and by applying the multiplier of 22. In an appeal, the High Court allowed it in part by holding that the pay should be Rs. 4,004/-. Being aggrieved by it, the claimants preferred an appeal contending that the High Court did not take note of those indisputable documents to calculate the income and loss of dependency. The Hon'ble Supreme Court formulated four questions, out of which one being the question relating to multiplier, is only relevant for the present case and after examining and considering its earlier decisions, it held: "41. Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. Some follow the multiplier with reference to Susamma Thomas [set out in Column (2) of the table above]; some follow the multiplier with reference to Trilok Chandra, [set out in Column (3) of the table above]; some follow the multiplier with reference to Charlie [set out in Column (4) of the table above]; many follow the multiplier given in the second column of the table in the Second Schedule of the MV Act [extracted in Column (5) of the table above]; and some follow the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule while calculating the quantum of compensation [set out in Column (6) of the table above]. For example if the deceased is aged 38 years, the multiplier would be 12 as per Susamma Thomas, 14 as per Trilok Chandra, 15 as per Charlie, or 16 as per the multiplier given in Column (2) of the Second Schedule to the MV Act or 15 as per the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule to the MV Act. Some tribunals, as in this case, apply the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with cases falling under Section 166 and not under Section 163-A of the MV Act. Some tribunals, as in this case, apply the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with cases falling under Section 166 and not under Section 163-A of the MV Act. In cases falling under Section 166 of the MV Act, Davies method is applicable. 42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M- 11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years." A similar issue came up for consideration before this court in MAC Appeal No. 1 of 2015, the National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Wangkhem Raniton Devi wherein this court held : "(7) The said decision was not only referred to but also relied upon by a larger Bench in the case of Reshma Kumari & ors. v. Madan Mohan & anr. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 . The large Bench specifically held that irrespective of whether the claim is under Section 166 or Section 163-A the multiplier indicated in Column (6) of the table in Sarla Verma's case (supra) must be followed. In the case of Puttamma & ors. v. K.L. Narayana Reddy & anr. reported in AIR 2014 SC 706 the Court again relied upon Sarla Verma's case and applied the appropriate multiplier on the basis of the age of the deceased. (8) These three decisions were distinguished by the learned counsel for the appellant solely on the ground that in the three reported cases referred to above the deceased persons were married. reported in AIR 2014 SC 706 the Court again relied upon Sarla Verma's case and applied the appropriate multiplier on the basis of the age of the deceased. (8) These three decisions were distinguished by the learned counsel for the appellant solely on the ground that in the three reported cases referred to above the deceased persons were married. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decisions in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Pathak (supra) and submitted that it was a case of an unmarried person who died in an accident and the Supreme Court took into consideration the age of the parents for the purpose of multiplier. The learned counsel also relied upon a decision in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shyam Singh (Supra) and submitted that in this case also the deceased was unmarried and age of the parents was taken into account for the purpose of multiplier. (9) It is true that in the above two cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant the age of the parents had been taken into consideration for the purpose of multiplier but in the case of Sarla Verma & ors. and Delhi Transport Corporation (Supra) no such distinction was made and it was held that multiplier has to be on the basis of age of the deceased. In an unreported decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Munna Lall Jain & anr. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & ors. in Civil Appeal No. 4497 of 2015, reliance was placed on Sarla Verma's case and multiplier was applied accordingly on the basis of the age of the deceased and in the said case the deceased was unmarried." On perusal of the aforesaid decisions, it is indubitably clear that while determining the compensation, the learned Tribunal ought to adopt a multiplier based on the age of the deceased and not on the age of the mother. In the present case, the multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the age of the mother is incorrect and therefore, this court is of the view that the contention of the learned counsels appearing for the claimants being substantial and forceful, is acceptable to this court. 8. In the present case, the multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the age of the mother is incorrect and therefore, this court is of the view that the contention of the learned counsels appearing for the claimants being substantial and forceful, is acceptable to this court. 8. As regards the second issue, it is surprising to note that both the parties are aggrieved by the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal that contributory negligence can be equally attributed to both the drivers but their stands are contradictory to each other. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 22-12-2011 at Beltola Check post in which the claimants' son died. The contention of Shri K. Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company is that the learned Tribunal, while deciding the claim petition, had completely ignored the evidence of the witnesses and in particular, the eye witness namely DW-4 and came to the conclusion that both the drivers were equally responsible and that the learned Tribunal did not ascertain the contributory negligence of the driver of the Alto Car. Although Shri Th. Babloo with his colleagues, the learned counsels appearing for the claimants contended that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that both the drivers were equally responsible for the accident, they did not refer to any document in support of their contention. It is true that DW-4 appears to be the only independent and eye witness who, in his examination in-chief, has stated that the Alto Car overtook another vehicle and after overtaking it, met with the accident. His evidence is significant for the reason that the width of the road is about 14 ft. on which it will be possible for two vehicles to ply, at one time, from opposite directions. On perusal of the cross-examination, it appears that no suggestion was put to him in this regard. He denied the suggestion that the truck was solely responsible and volunteered that both the vehicles were responsible. DW-2, the driver of the Truck also has stated that suddenly, a four wheeler (Car) overtook a heavy vehicle and dashed against the front right side of his vehicle. He denied the suggestion that the truck was solely responsible and volunteered that both the vehicles were responsible. DW-2, the driver of the Truck also has stated that suddenly, a four wheeler (Car) overtook a heavy vehicle and dashed against the front right side of his vehicle. Shri Biswajit Adhikary who has been examined as DW-1, has submitted an investigation report marked as Exhibit-B/1 and a site plan of the accident enclosed therewith, has substantiated the statements made by DW-3 and DW-2 and even the four photographs filed by the claimants along with an application dated 03-01-2014 substantiated the site plan. While examining the DW-1, no suggestion was put to him as regards the correctness of the site plan and moreover, there was no any suggestion put to DW-1 that he did prepare the investigation report only with a view to favour the Insurance Company. The learned Tribunal has not considered these aspects and in other words, the learned Tribunal has not ascertained the contributory negligence of the driver of the Alto Car as well as that of the Truck and rather, has jumped to the conclusion that both the drivers are equally responsible for the accident without examining the materials on record as aforesaid. In an accident like the present one where two vehicles, registered in different insurance companies, involved, it is the bounden duty of the learned Tribunal to ascertain the contributory negligence of both the vehicles so as to determine a correct and adequate compensation. 9. For the reasons stated herein above, both the appeals are allowed, in part, to the extent indicated above and consequently, the impugned judgment and order is set aside with the direction that the case be remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manipur for re-consideration, in respect of the aforesaid two issues, in the light of the observations made herein above. Keeping in mind the fact that the accident took place in the year 2012, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manipur is directed to dispose of the case as quickly as possible preferably with three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order.