JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal both on the ground of negligence and quantum. 2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, appeal is heard, admitted and disposed of finally. 3. I have perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and also the records. 4. As there is no dispute regarding death of one Sri. Pachaiah in a road traffic accident occurred on 15.08.2010 by involvement of a motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-09-ED-3215 and a Tamilnadu State Corporation bus bearing registration No. TN-33-N-2497 by its driver, the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are: 1. “Whether finding of the Tribunal on negligence in holding that accident occurred due to contributory negligence of 25% on the part of the rider of the two wheeler and 75% on the part of the driver of the bus is just and proper? 2. Whether compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?” 5. Smt. Anupama Shankar Arahunshi, learned counsel for the claimants submits that while one Karigowda was riding the motor cycle in which deceased was traveling as a pillion rider on the left side of the road slowly and carefully by observing traffic rules and regulations, at that time, a T.S.T.C. bus came from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their motor cycle. She further submits that perusal of FIR, sketch, spot mahazar, rough sketch of the spot, IMV report and charge sheet would support the case of the claimants that accident occurred due to sole rash and negligent driving of bus by its driver. 6. Regarding quantum she submits compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and it needs to be enhanced. Therefore she prays for modification of the award of the Tribunal both on the ground of negligence and quantum. 7. Sri. 6. Regarding quantum she submits compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and it needs to be enhanced. Therefore she prays for modification of the award of the Tribunal both on the ground of negligence and quantum. 7. Sri. Satish H.K. learned counsel for BPDS Associates for respondent insurer of the bus submits that the Tribunal after carefully considering the oral and documentary evidence on record has clearly held that accident had occurred due to contributory negligence of the rider of the two wheeler and driver of the bus at the rate of 25% and 75% respectively He further submits that even quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no scope for enhancement. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of appeal in its entirety. 8. PW.1 is the wife of deceased, who admittedly has not seen the accident and therefore, her evidence is not useful in deciding the issue relating to negligence. PW.2 stated to have seen the accident while proceeding as a passenger in another two wheeler. PW.2 in his examination in chief has supported the case of the claimants by deposing that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Whereas, in his cross-examination, he has stated that accident had taken place during night at about 7.30 P.M. and there were no street lights. He has deposed that he does not know, who showed the spot of the accident to the police. PW.2 who has stated in his examination in chief that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus but has not stated as to how the accident had occurred. 9. The insurer of the bus had examined the driver of the bus, who has stated in his evidence that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle while overtaking the lorry. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestions put to him by the learned counsel for the claimants that he has stated that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the two wheeler in order to avoid payment of compensation to the claimants from the insurer of the bus. 10. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestions put to him by the learned counsel for the claimants that he has stated that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the two wheeler in order to avoid payment of compensation to the claimants from the insurer of the bus. 10. As per police records and case pleaded by the parties, bus was proceeding from Nanjangud towards Mysuru and deceased was traveling in a two wheeler from Mysuru towards Nanjangud and vehicles were proceeding in the opposite directions. As per the sketch, at the spot of the accident, the width of the road was 22 feet and there was 10 feet space left towards right side of the bus. If that is taken into consideration, there was hardly 4 feet space available towards left side of the bus. The rider of two wheeler had clear 10 feet space to ride his motor cycle and he could have easily passed through in the said 10 feet space. The tribunal considering the above aspect and other oral and documentary evidence on record has rightly held that accident had occurred due to contributory negligence of 25% on the part of the rider of two wheeler in which deceased travelled as pillion rider and 75% on the part of the driver of the bus. I have carefully gone through the finding of the Tribunal on negligence and do not find any illegality or infirmity in its approach warranting interference. Hence, the finding of the tribunal on negligence is confirmed and point No.1 is answered accordingly. Regarding quantum 11. Claimants in support of their contention that the deceased by working as a Operator at Pasari Spinning Mill Ltd., Thandavapura, Nanjangud Taluk was earning salary of Rs.10,000/- per month, have examined the wife of the deceased as PW.1 and have produced the salary certificate issued by the Pasari Spinning Mill Ltd, and got it marked as Ex.P.10. The salary mentioned in Ex.P.10 is for 17 working days. As per that salary certificate, per day salary of deceased is at Rs.283.30/-. So his monthly salary would be Rs.8,499/-. The Tribunal without considering this aspect has committed an error in taking his income as Rs.4,400/- per month. Hence, salary income of the deceased is considered at Rs.8,499/- and rounded of to 8,500/- per month. 12. As per that salary certificate, per day salary of deceased is at Rs.283.30/-. So his monthly salary would be Rs.8,499/-. The Tribunal without considering this aspect has committed an error in taking his income as Rs.4,400/- per month. Hence, salary income of the deceased is considered at Rs.8,499/- and rounded of to 8,500/- per month. 12. The deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is 17. His income is assessed at Rs.8,500/- per month. Claimants are wife, two minor children and mother of the deceased and they are four in numbers. So 1/4th of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and remaining 3/4th of his income has to be taken as his contribution towards family. Therefore, ‘loss of dependency’ works out to Rs.13,00,500/- (8,500 X 12 X 17 X 3/4) and it is awarded as against Rs.6,73,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13. First claimant, wife of the deceased had lost her husband at her young age and therefore, Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium Rs.50,000/- each is awarded towards loss of love and affection of claimants Nos. 2 and 4 – the children of the deceased and Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards loss of love and affection of claimant No.3 – the mother of the deceased. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded towards transportation of the dead body and funeral expenses. As Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘Loss of Estate’ is disallowed, as compensation is awarded under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 14. Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following compensation:- PARTICULARS Rs. Loss of Dependency 13,00,500 Loss of consortium to 1st Claimant 1,00,000 Loss of love and affection to 2nd and 4th Claimants (Rs.50,000/- each) 1,00,000 Loss of love and affection to 3rd claimant 25,000 Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses 20,000 TOTAL 15,45,500 LESS: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 7,33,200 BALANCE 8,12,300 LESS: 25% of contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle 2,03,075 BALANCE 6,09,225 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated herein above. The claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.6,09,225/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated herein above. The claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.6,09,225/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. 16. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount together with interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. From which, Rs.1,50,000/- with proportionate interest each is ordered to be invested in fixed deposit in the name of claimant Nos.1, 2 and 4 in any Nationalised Bank/Scheduled Bank/Post Office for a period of 5 years and with a right of option to withdraw interest periodically. Remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in favour of the claimant Nos.1 and 3 in equl proportion. 17. The Tribunal while releasing balance amount is also directed to issue the fixed deposit receipts, so as to enable the claimants to withdraw the fixed deposit amount on its maturity without approaching the Tribunal once again and the Bank is also directed to release the fixed deposit amount on maturity without insisting for any further order from the Tribunal. No order as to costs.