JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants assailing the judgment and award passed by the MACT - IX, Bellary in MVC No. 481/2007, dated 24.02.2009. 2. Heard. Appeal is admitted and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. The brief facts of the case as averred in the claim petition are that on 27.01.2007 at about 3.30 p.m. Narasimhappa was driving the tractor trailer bearing registration No. KA-06/T-5301 and 5302 loaded with slag/sand from Jamipal towards Shankarlingagudda colony. When the said tractor came near the bypass road, the driver of the said tractor was intending to take turn towards right side of the road and at that time a tipper lorry bearing registration No. KA-37/4260 came from Sandur side from opposite direction, rashly and negligently, and dashed to the tractor in which the said Narasimhappa was proceeding. Due to the said impact, said Narasimhappa succumbed to the injuries on the spot. It is further contended that the deceased was working as a driver of the tractor and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. For having lost the bread earner, the wife and children of the deceased have filed a claim petition under section 166 of M.V. Act. 4. In pursuance of notice, respondent No. 2 appeared before the Tribunal and filed his objections by admitting the fact that the said vehicle was insured, but his liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further contended that the deceased has contributed to the alleged accident and he is not liable to pay any compensation. Respondent No. 3 and 4 filed their objections by denying the contents of the petition it is further contended that the driver of the Tipper Lorry was rash and negligent. It is further contended by the 3rd respondent that he was paying salary to the deceased to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month in addition to Rs. 50/- per day as batta. Respondent No. 1 and 5 remained absent and they were placed ex-parte. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. It is further contended by the 3rd respondent that he was paying salary to the deceased to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month in addition to Rs. 50/- per day as batta. Respondent No. 1 and 5 remained absent and they were placed ex-parte. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioners proves that, on 27.01.2007, one Narasimhappa the husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioners 1, 2 to 4 was traveling as a tractor driver bearing No. KA-06/T-5301 and trailer No. KA-06/T-5302 loading with slag/sand from Jamipal and going for unloading near Shankarlinga Guddad colony and at about 3.30 p.m. when on Torangal Bypass road, at that time the Tipper Lorry bearing No. KA-37/4250 driven by its driver came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and high speed and dashed to the tractor and as a result of it Narasimhappa strucked in between back right side wheels of the said lorry and died on the spot? 2. Whether the respondent No. 2 proves that, there is contributory negligence in causing the accident as alleged in para No. 17 of the WS? 3. Whether the respondent No. 3 and 4 proves that, the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver? 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation amount as prayed for? 5. What order? 6. In order to prove their case, petitioner No. 1 got examined herself as PW-1 and got examined the eyewitness as PW-2 and got marked documents as per Ex.P1 to P11. On behalf of respondent No. 2insurance company, it got examined its Assistant Manager as RW-1 and got marked documents as per Ex.R.1 and 2. The other respondents have not led any evidence on their behalf. 7. After hearing the parties to the lis, the impugned judgment and award came to be passed by the Tribunal. 8. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants are that the compensation awarded under the various heads is on the lower side. He further contended that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence and the documents produced while coming to the conclusion that the deceased himself has contributed to the extent of 50% to the alleged accident. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants are that the compensation awarded under the various heads is on the lower side. He further contended that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence and the documents produced while coming to the conclusion that the deceased himself has contributed to the extent of 50% to the alleged accident. He further contended that when the tipper lorry has been involved in the accident, then under such circumstances, the said vehicle is a bigger vehicle and he could have taken more care and caution, and merely because the sketch has been produced, it cannot be concluded that the deceased has also contributed to the alleged accident. He further contended that PW-2 is an eyewitness to the alleged accident and he has categorically deposed before the Court that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Tipper Lorry. Then under such circumstances, the full liability ought to have been fixed on the owner of the tipper lorry and the insurer. On these grounds, he prayed for allowing the appeal by enhancing the compensation and fixing the full liability on the owner of the tipper lorry. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-insurer has vehemently argued by contending that the Ex.R2, sketch, which has been produced before the Tribunal by the insurer clearly indicates the fact that the alleged accident took place in the middle of the road and there was head on collusion in between the lorry and the tractor and it also indicates that the tipper lorry was coming from the opposite side and the driver of the tractor was intending to take turn to towards right side and he has not taken any precaution before taking turn and as such he has contributed to the alleged accident. The said fact has been elaborately discussed and decided in issue No. 2 by the Tribunal and the same may be confirmed. He further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. On these grounds he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 10. The said fact has been elaborately discussed and decided in issue No. 2 by the Tribunal and the same may be confirmed. He further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. On these grounds he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 10. The first and foremost contention taken up by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence and the documents produced while coming to the conclusion that the deceased has also contributed to the alleged accident to the extent of 50%. As could be seen from the judgment and award, it has been averred by the appellants/claimants that the accident was due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the tipper lorry and it is the contention of the respondent-insurer that the deceased has contributed to the alleged accident and he himself was rash and negligent at the time of the alleged incident. 11. In order to substantiate the said fact, the appellants/claimants got examined PW-2, the eyewitness. In his evidence, he has deposed that he was proceeding behind the tractor and trailer, which met with an accident and at that time, the deceased was driving the tractor slowly and with caution on proper side of the road and by giving indication by his hands he was intending to take turn towards right side and at that time a heavy tipper lorry bearing registration No. KA-37/4260 came from opposite direction and dashed against the tractor in which the deceased Narasimhappa was proceeding. During the course of cross- examination, he deposed that he was at a distance of ½ k.m. from the place of the accident. The respondents have also led evidence to the effect that the alleged accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased himself and also produced the sketch as per Ex.R.2. As could be seen from Ex.R.2, the alleged accident took place when the deceased, who was the driver of the tractor, was intending to take turn towards right side. By close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-2, it indicates that PW-2 would not be in a position to exactly see oncoming vehicle from such a distance and also the hand signal made by the deceased. By close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-2, it indicates that PW-2 would not be in a position to exactly see oncoming vehicle from such a distance and also the hand signal made by the deceased. When the tipper lorry was coming from opposite direction, that too on the main road and that the deceased was intending to take the tractor towards right turn, then under such circumstances, he could have taken more care and caution while taking turn towards right side. The sketch which has been produced at Ex.R2 also clearly indicates the fact that the said accident took place towards right side of the road when the lorry was coming from western side. Be that as it may, by going through the evidence and the documents it clearly indicates the fact that the driver of the tractor could have avoided the collision between the vehicles and but the deceased himself has also contributed to the alleged accident. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision in the case of Kishan Gopal and Another v. Lala and Others, 2013 ACJ 2594 and in the case of Jiju Kurivila and Others v. Kunjujamma Mohan and Others, 2013 ACJ 2141 . The ratio laid down in those cases is not applicable to the present case on hand. In order to determine the rash and negligent act of the vehicle when two vehicles have been collided, it all depends upon the factors like speed of the vehicle, intensity of the collision, reason for collision and place at which one vehicle hit the other, which must be taken into consideration. By going through the sketch and the evidence of PW-2, it clearly indicates the fact that the driver of the tractor was intending to take turn towards right side and at that time the alleged accident took place. When there is corroborative evidence to show that the driver of the tractor has also contributed to the alleged accident, then under such circumstances, the finding given by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper and it does not require any interference. In that light, the contention taken up by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants does not deserves to be acceptable. 12. In that light, the contention taken up by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants does not deserves to be acceptable. 12. The second contention taken up by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the various heads is on the lower side and the same requires to be enhanced. As could be seen from the judgment and award, the deceased was the driver of the tractor and trailer under respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 3 in his objections has stated that he was paying Rs. 4,000/- per month and also Rs. 50/- per day batta. By taking the income at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- after deducting 1/3rd of the same towards personal expenses of the deceased and after applying the multiplier of 14, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 5,04,000/- towards loss of dependency. Though under the normal circumstances the method adopted by the Tribunal appears to be justifiable but when the dependants are more than 03 persons, then under such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The income taken by the Tribunal is just and proper but as the deceased was less than 40 years at the time of the accident, the compensation has to be calculated by applying multiplier 15. In that light, if 1/4th of 4,500/- is deducted towards personal expenses, it will come to Rs. 3375/- and after applying multiplier of 15 the appellants/claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs. 6,07,500/- (Rs. 3,375 x 12 x 15 = 6,07,500) towards loss of dependency. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the conventional heads also appears to be on the lower side. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi and Others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 , the appellants/claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs. 70,000/- under the conventional heads. If that were to be added, then under such circumstances, the appellants/claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 6,77,500/- and since the deceased has also contributed to the alleged accident to the extent of 50% and if 50% is deducted out of Rs. 6,67,500/- it will come to Rs. 3,38,750/-. Since already the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs. 6,77,500/- and since the deceased has also contributed to the alleged accident to the extent of 50% and if 50% is deducted out of Rs. 6,67,500/- it will come to Rs. 3,38,750/-. Since already the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs. 2,74,500/- after deducting the same, the appellants/ claimants are entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 64,250/- with interest @ 6% per annum. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No. 481/2007 is modified as indicated above. 13. Registry is directed to draw the award accordingly. 14. The respondent-insurer is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and additional compensation awarded by this Court within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.