JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.8.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand ('the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,42,200/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 1.4.2000. 2. The application for compensation was filed by the claimants-parents, wife and children of one Ramesh with the averments that he was driving motor-cycle along with one Chandra Prakash when the offending tractor struck the motor-cycle, resulting in both the occupants suffering grievous injuries to which Ramesh succumbed. It was claimed that Ramesh was aged about 25 years, involved in marble trading and used to earn Rs. 5,000/-, based on the said averments compensation was sought. 3. The driver of the offending vehicle also died in the accident and therefore, the claim was filed against the owner of the tractor as well as its insurance company. 4. A reply to the application was filed by the insurance company inter-alia indicating that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the deceased himself, the driver of the tractor was not in possession of valid driving licence, based on the said averments it was prayed that the application for compensation be dismissed. 5. The Tribunal framed four issues. On behalf of the claimants Smt. Manju wife of the deceased was examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company no evidence was led. 6. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, based on the police document Ex.-1, which is FR, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both the vehicles and found the contribution of the deceased at 50%. 7. While assessing the amount of compensation, the Tribunal taking the minimum wages at Rs. 60/- per day assessed monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1,800/-, after applying multiplier of 18 and deducting ?rd towards personal expenses, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,59,200/- as compensation and further awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards love and affection, Rs. 4,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 1,200/- towards litigation expenses and after deducting 50% towards contributory negligence awarded sum of Rs. 1,42,200/- along with interest as noticed hereinbefore. 8. 1,800/-, after applying multiplier of 18 and deducting ?rd towards personal expenses, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,59,200/- as compensation and further awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards love and affection, Rs. 4,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 1,200/- towards litigation expenses and after deducting 50% towards contributory negligence awarded sum of Rs. 1,42,200/- along with interest as noticed hereinbefore. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal committed error in holding the deceased liable for contributory negligence in the accident. It was submitted that neither any plea was raised in the written statement nor any evidence was led by the Insurance Company and therefore, the finding in this regard could not have been recorded by the Tribunal. 9. Further submissions were made that the Tribunal has taken contributory negligence at 50% without any basis and/or indicating any reason and therefore, the finding deserves to be set-aside. 10. Regarding the quantum of compensation, it was submitted that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the lower side, though he was involved in marble trading and that the deduction has been made on the higher side despite the fact that five persons were dependent on the deceased. 11. Reliance was placed on Minu Rout and Anr. v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and Ors., 2013 ACJ 2544 , Prabandhak, U.P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam v. Rabia Begum and Ors., 2015 ACJ 1492, and Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan, 2013 ACJ 2141 (SC). 12. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the award impugned. It was submitted that from the material available on record, it is apparent that the deceased had contributed to the accident and it cannot be said that the Tribunal committed any error in coming to the said conclusion. 13. Further submissions were made that based on the evidence which has been led by the appellants, the Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation, which does not require any interference. It was prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 14. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 15. A bare look at the claim petition filed by the appellants indicates that nowhere in the application, any details regarding the accident were indicated as to what resulted in the accident and how the driver of the tractor was negligent in causing accident. 15. A bare look at the claim petition filed by the appellants indicates that nowhere in the application, any details regarding the accident were indicated as to what resulted in the accident and how the driver of the tractor was negligent in causing accident. The sole witness Smt. Manju PW-1 in her statement did not say a single line regarding the negligence of the driver of the tractor. 16. Admittedly, the deceased was driving the motor-cycle along with Chandra Prakash, who also filed an application for compensation for the injuries suffered by him. However, said Chandra Prakash did not enter the witness box either in the present claim petition or in his own claim petition, which resulted in dismissal of his claim petition. The Tribunal based on the material which was available on record i.e. FR (Ex.-1) produced by the claimant, reached to a conclusion regarding the negligence of the driver of the tractor and contributory negligence of the deceased. 17. The FR inter-alia indicates the contents of the FIR as under:- ^^eSa VsªDVj ij lokj Fkk tEi ds ikl VsªDVj FkksM+k :d x;k ftlds dkj.k eksVj lkbZfdy lokj O;fDr os Li"V gksdj gekjh VsªDVj ls HkhM+ x;sA ftl dkj.k VsªDVj jksM+ ls uhps iwoZ lkbZM ij mrj x;k rFkk VsªDVj VªkWyh mrj x;s 'kadj viuh tku cpkus uhps dqnk dh mlds Åij VªkWyh dk Vk;j ?kqe x;k ftlls 'kadj dh e`R;q gks xbZA eksVj lkbZfdy lokj nksuksa O;fDr;ksa ds xaHkhj pksVsa vkbZ gS ;g nq?kZVuk eksVj lkbZfdy lokj ,oa VªsDVj MªkbZoj dh ykijokgh ls gqvk gSA bryk djrk gwWa dk;Zokgh djkosaA** Based on the said indication in the FR, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the tractor was not vigilant regarding the jump, which resulted in tractor turning turtle and the driver of the motor-cycle also could not control the motorcycle and consequently, found both the driver of the tractor and deceased to have contributory to the accident. 18. A close scrutiny of the statement as quoted herein-before would reveal that in the FIR it was indicated that near the jump the tractor stopped, on account of which, the driver of the motorcycle got confused and struck the tractor, which resulted in the tractor leaving the road and turning turtle and when the driver of the tractor jumped from the tractor, he came under its tyre and died. A line was mentioned that the accident occurred on account of negligence of both the motor-cycle driver and the tractor driver. From the material available on record, it is not apparent as to how the accident took place and whether the motor-cycle struck the tractor head on or it struck the tractor from behind which resulted in the accident and injuries. 19. In view of the above state of affairs, the indication in the FR wherein the FIR as quoted regarding negligence of both the drivers of the vehicles, which was only an opinion of the first informant, could not have been made the basis by the Tribunal for coming to the conclusion that the deceased had contributed to the accident as it has ignored a significant part of the FIR, wherein it was specifically indicated that when the tractor stopped near the jump, the motor-cycle driver got confused and struck the tractor. 20. The very fact that in the first instance, the informant had indicated that the driver of the motor-cycle got confused on account of the tractor stopping near the jump, necessarily means the accident occurred on account of negligence of the driver and apparently, there was no material available on record for the Tribunal to come to a conclusion that the accident occurred on account of contributory negligence of the driver of the motorcycle. 21. In the case of Rabia Begum (supra), the Allahabad High Court based on law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jiju Kuruvila (supra) held that burden to prove contributory negligence lies on the party, who pleads it. In the present case though specific pleading regarding contributory negligence was not there, however, the Insurance Company tried to shift the burden wholly and solely on the driver of the motor-cycle. 22. Based on the said averments, though the finding of contributory negligence could have been recorded by the Tribunal, but then for that purpose further material and/or some clarity in the documents in question was required which is not available. Further as already stated herein-before, once the material as available has been read by the Tribunal, the same has not been properly appreciated and therefore, the finding of contributory negligence as recorded by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 23. Further as already stated herein-before, once the material as available has been read by the Tribunal, the same has not been properly appreciated and therefore, the finding of contributory negligence as recorded by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 23. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimant except for a bald statement regarding the income of the deceased has not produced any material on record so as to sustain the claim of income of Rs. 5,000/- per month. 24. Faced with the said situation, the Tribunal was justified in taking the income of the deceased at minimum wages i.e. Rs. 1800/- per month. 25. So far as the deduction of ?rd is concerned, the same appears to be excessive in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 , wherein for dependence between 4 to 6, the deduction of ¼th has been indicated. 26. In view of above discussion, the quantum of compensation is calculated as under:- 1800 x 12 x 18 = 3,88,800 - 97,200 (¼th) = 2,91,600/-, the rest of the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection/consortium, funeral expenses and litigation expenses does not call for any interference. 27. Consequently, now the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,16,800/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 1.4.2000 to the date of actual payment. 28. Any amount paid by the respondents under the impugned award shall be adjusted by the Tribunal. 29. The amount of enhanced compensation i.e. Rs. 1,74,600/- would be distributed in the manner a sum of Rs. 75,000/- along with interest shall be paid to Smt. Manju - wife of the deceased and rest of the amount along with interest would be distributed equally amongst Shri Jagdish, Smt. Shantabai, Shri Shubham and Ms. Karishma - parents and children of the deceased. 30. The amount would be paid in the Saving Bank account of the claimants within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment. The appeal filed by the appellants stands partly allowed.