JUDGMENT : MFA.Nos.2628/2016, 2629/2016, 2631/2016 have been preferred by the Insurance Company, whereas MFA.No.5655/2016 has been preferred by the claimants challenging the judgment and award, dated 8.1.2016 passed by the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-5) in MVC.Nos.703, 704 and 705/2015. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.1.2015 at about 10.30 p.m., Raghunatha, his wife, daughter and one Pradeep Kumar were proceeding in Bolero Jeep bearing Regn.No.KA-03-MJ-2552 driven by the said Raghunatha. When the said jeep came near Arya Edigara Mutt at Solur in Magadi Taluka, Ramanagara, a lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-09-6930 was proceeding ahead with great speed and the driver of the said lorry abruptly applied the brake and stopped the lorry without giving any indication, as a result of the same, there was a collision between the lorry and jeep at the rare portion of the lorry. In the said accident, wife of Raghunatha died on the spot and Raghunatha and his daughter sustained injuries. Immediately, they were taken to Nelamangala Government Hospital and from there Raghunatha and his daughter were taken to People Tree Hospital, Goraguntepalya, where they took treatment as inpatients. 3. For having suffered the injuries and due to the death of the deceased, claimants preferred claim petitions in MVC.Nos.703, 704 and 705/2015. before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was the contention of the claimants that they suffered grievous injuries in the accident in question. It was their further contention that the deceased was running a Beauty Parlour and earning Rs.40,000/- per month and was contributing the major portion of the income to the family. Hence, they prayed for grant of compensation in the aforesaid claim petitions. 4. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the lorry by denying the contents of the claim petitions, contended that the said lorry has been insured with respondent No.2-Insurance Company as on the date of the accident and it was in currency; the driver of the said lorry was holding a valid and effective license and as such respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation. 5. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company also denied the contents of the claim petition in their objections and contended that the driver of the lorry was not having a valid and effective driving license. 5. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company also denied the contents of the claim petition in their objections and contended that the driver of the lorry was not having a valid and effective driving license. Lorry was going in a normal speed, the driver of the jeep has not left minimum space and due to his negligence the alleged accident has taken place. In that context, they contended that they are not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal after framing necessary issues and after considering the evidence of PW.1Raghunatha, the injured claimant and the documents produced by the claimants at Ex.P1 to P16 has passed the impugned judgment and award granting compensation of Rs.14,63,672/- with interest at 6% per annum, in MVC.No.703/2015 filed in respect of death of the wife of Raghunatha; Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 8% per annum in MVC.No.704/2015 in favour of the injured claimant Raghunatha; and Rs.25,000/- with interest at 8% per annum in MVC.No.705/2015 filed by the daughter of Raghunatha. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed MFA.No.5655/2016 seeking enhancement of the same, whereas challenging the liability, the Insurance Company has filed MFA.Nos.2628/2016, 2629/2016, 2631/2016. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company that the driver (claimant-Raghunatha) of the Bolero Jeep was required to maintain the safe distance between the two vehicles at the time when another vehicle is proceeding ahead of him as per Regulation 23 of Rules of Road Regulations, 1989 (‘Regulations’ for short). The evidence and the material on record clearly indicate that the claimant-Raghunatha who was driving the jeep has not maintained the safe distance and due to the negligence on his part, the alleged accident has taken place. Though the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the claimant Raghunatha-driver of jeep has contributed to the alleged accident, it has erroneously given a finding that the driver of the lorry was negligent and entire liability has been fixed on the Insurance Company without looking into the documents produced, which is not sustainable in law. 8. Though the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the claimant Raghunatha-driver of jeep has contributed to the alleged accident, it has erroneously given a finding that the driver of the lorry was negligent and entire liability has been fixed on the Insurance Company without looking into the documents produced, which is not sustainable in law. 8. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the claimants that the charge sheet has been filed as against the driver of the lorry and he has not at all stepped into the witness box to substantiate the contention that Ragunatha, the driver of the jeep was responsible for the accident in question and even in the pleadings also no such case has been put forth by the Insurance Company. In the absence of such material on record, the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the lorry has abruptly applied the brake and stopped the vehicle and as a result of such negligent act of the driver of the lorry, the alleged accident has taken place. It is his further contention that the Tribunal by considering all the materials, has rightly held that the driver of the lorry is negligent and has given such a finding. Hence he prayed to confirm the same by dismissing the appeal. 9. The records would disclose that the lorry was proceeding ahead and behind the said lorry the jeep was proceeding and at that time the alleged accident has taken place. The said fact is not in dispute. As could be seen from the evidence of PW.1, he has deposed that the driver of the lorry by non-obeying the traffic rules suddenly applied the brake without giving any indication and due to the said act, the alleged accident has taken place. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1, he has deposed that lorry was moving on the left side of the road and he was also moving on the left side of the road and there was a distance of 15 feet between the two vehicles. He further deposed that both the vehicles were in a speed of 60 to 80 kms. If the said evidence is perused with the sketch at Ex,.P4, it clearly indicates that the said road is a National Highway having width of 150 feet. He further deposed that both the vehicles were in a speed of 60 to 80 kms. If the said evidence is perused with the sketch at Ex,.P4, it clearly indicates that the said road is a National Highway having width of 150 feet. Admittedly, when the lorry and jeep were moving on the left side of the road, there was further place on the right side of the road and it is the evidence of PW.1 that there was a distance of 15 feet between the two vehicles. If there was a distance of 15 feet according to PW.1, then under such circumstances, even assuming that the driver of the lorry abruptly applied the brake and stopped the vehicle without any indication, there was every chance for the claimant Raghunatha-driver of jeep to avoid the said accident, if he could have maintained the distance of 15 feet. If really there was a distance of 15 feet, definitely either he could have applied the brake or he could have taken his vehicle from the right side of the road of the lorry where there was a sufficient place to move. If panchanama and other records are perused, they clearly indicate the fact that the said jeep went and hit the rare portion of the lorry on the right side thereby left front portion of the jeep has been fully damaged. In that context, it clearly indicates that the claimant Raghunatha who was driving the jeep has not maintained the safe distance as per Regulation 23 of the Regulations so as to avoid such accident. 10. Be that as it may, even the learned counsel for the claimants has canvassed that in order to avoid the impact, the claimant Raghunatha took his vehicle towards right side of the road and in that context the rare portion of the lorry came in contact with the left front portion of the jeep and caused the damage. But, the material on record indicates that the driver of the jeep without stopping his vehicle, has tried to over take the lorry with the same speed and thereby he has also contributed to the alleged accident as the jeep went and hit the rare portion of the lorry. When there was a sufficient place, he could have also avoided the alleged accident. When there was a sufficient place, he could have also avoided the alleged accident. Though the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the driver of the jeep was also at fault, it erroneously has held that it is the driver of the lorry who is held liable for the accident in question. As could be seen from the impugned judgment, there are no cogent and acceptable reasons assigned by the Tribunal though there was a vague evidence and it has straight away held that the driver of the lorry is held to be negligent and responsible for the accident. 11. Learned counsel for the claimants by relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of The Managing Director, BMTC., Vs. Sri Deanish M.A. & others, reported in ILR 2016 KAR 1585; and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & others, reported in (2015)9 SCC 273 , has contended that as there is a composite negligence, the driver of the lorry is responsible for the accident in question. 12. However, in the instant case, it is not the composite negligence, but it is a contributory negligence. There is a difference between contributory and composite negligence. In the case of composite negligence a person who has suffered has not contributed to the accident but due to the outcome of the combination of negligence of two or more other persons he has suffered injuries/death. In such case, the claimant is entitled to sue both or anyone of the joint tort-feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several. But in case of contributory negligence, a person who has himself contributed to the accident cannot claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident to the extent of his own negligence. Extent of his negligence is required to be determined as damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries have to be reduced in proportionate to his contributory negligence. This proposition of law has been also laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Khenyei’s Case (supra) at paragraphs15 and 22.1. 13. Extent of his negligence is required to be determined as damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries have to be reduced in proportionate to his contributory negligence. This proposition of law has been also laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Khenyei’s Case (supra) at paragraphs15 and 22.1. 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid proposition of law, in the instant case the alleged accident has taken place between the two vehicles, out of which one is of the claimant himself, under such circumstances, it is not a composite negligence, but it is a contributory negligence. In the light of the above discussion held by me, the decisions quoted by the learned counsel for the claimants with great respect do not apply to the case on hand. On strict analysis of the proximity or immediate cause of the event, the claimant-Raghunatha could have prevented the accident by mischief by exercise of care is the relevant. Though the learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the driver of the lorry abruptly applied the brake and in order to avoid the major impact, the claimant-Raghunatha took his jeep on the right side and in that context the left side front portion of the jeep went and hit to the rare portion of the lorry, on analysis the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of Regulation 23 of Regulations, if the claimant Raghunatha-driver of the jeep could have maintained the safe distance and if he could have applied the brake immediately after seeing the driver of the lorry stopping the vehicle, then he could have avoided the accident. But it can be inferred that when the driver of the lorry applied the brake and stopped the lorry, as the claimant Raghunatha-driver of the jeep has not maintained the safe distance, he tried to overtake without reducing the speed, in that context, he went and hit the rare portion of the lorry. In that light, it can be held that the driver of the jeep could have lost opportunity to prevent the mischief by exercise of due care. In that light, it can be held that the driver of the jeep could have lost opportunity to prevent the mischief by exercise of due care. In the light of the above discussion, it can safely be held that the driver of the lorry by applying the brake abruptly has contributed the negligence to the alleged accident to an extent of 70% and the claimant-Raghunatha who was driving the jeep who was having lost opportunity to take due care and caution has contributed to the alleged accident to an extent of 30%. 14. Learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the Insurance Company has not led any evidence to substantiate the said contentions. Though they have not led any evidence, heavy burden lies on the claimants to prove that the alleged accident has taken place solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The documents and evidence on record would clearly indicate that the claimant-Raghunatha has also contributed to the accident in question. In that light, even though the Insurance Company has not led any evidence, it is the duty of the Court to ascertain the truth and do the justice. In that light, the said contention is not tenable in law and the same is rejected. 15. It is further contention of the learned counsel appearing for the claimants that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC.No.703/2015 is on the lower side, whereas, it is the contention of the learned counsel for Insurance Company is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and the same does not require any interference by this Court. 16. As could be seen from the impugned judgment and award, it was the contention of the claimants that the deceased was running a Beauty Parlour and was earning more than Rs.40,000/- per month and she was also an income tax assessee. In order to substantiate the said fact, they have produced the income tax returns as per Exs.P9 and P10. Though gross income is shown as Rs.2,37,129/-, by taking the income at the rate of Rs.1,18,000/- per annum, after deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and after applying multiplier of ‘16’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.12,58,672/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.2,05,000/- under the conventional heads. 17. Though gross income is shown as Rs.2,37,129/-, by taking the income at the rate of Rs.1,18,000/- per annum, after deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and after applying multiplier of ‘16’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.12,58,672/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.2,05,000/- under the conventional heads. 17. Though under normal circumstances, the compensation awarded is justifiable, as could be seen from Exs.P9 and P10, the gross income of the deceased for the assessment year 2011-12 is shown as 2,03,560/- and for the assessment year 2012-13, it is shown as 2,17,650/. The accident is of the year 2015. They have not produced any document for having filed the returns for the assessment year 2013-14. But they have produced the statement of the accounts which does not give any picture as to how much income tax was paid. In this behalf, if the average is taken, it comes to Rs.2,10,605/-. Though the deceased was self-employed and was having an established income, the Tribunal without considering the said facts, has opined that it is not a permanent job and as such adding of future prospects is not considered. But the said observation of the Tribunal is not correct. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , if the claimant proves that the deceased was self-employed and was having an established income then under such circumstances, future prospects should be awarded. In the said decision guidelines are also issued that if the age of the deceased is below 40 years, then 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects. On the average income which is taken into consideration, if 40% is added towards future prospects, it comes to Rs.2,94,847/-. Since there are two dependents, 1/3rd of the same has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. In that light, an amount of Rs.98,282/- has to be deducted out of Rs.2,94,847/- which comes to Rs.1,96,565/- which would be the annual income of the deceased. Since the deceased was aged 35 years and the appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘16’ and if the same is adopted, then under such circumstances, the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.31,45,040/- as compensation towards loss of dependency. 18. Since the deceased was aged 35 years and the appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘16’ and if the same is adopted, then under such circumstances, the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.31,45,040/- as compensation towards loss of dependency. 18. As could be seen from the impugned judgment, the compensation awarded under the conventional heads appears to be on the higher side. In view of the decision in Pranay Sethi’s Case (supra), the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.70,000/- under the conventional heads. 19. In the light of the above discussion held by me, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.32,15,040/-. Since this Court has already come to the conclusion that the first claimant Raghunatha, the husband of the deceased has also contributed to the alleged accident to the extent of 30%, after deducting 30% of the total compensation, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.22,50,528/- with interest at 6% per annum. 20. The apportionment of compensation should be as per the award of the Tribunal. But however, it is directed that 60% of the amount which has fallen to claimant No.2 (daughter of the deceased), who being the minor, has to be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank or Postal Authorities till she attains the age of majority. But however, her guardian is at liberty to draw the interest accrued thereon for the benefit of the minor daughter. 21. In so far as the claimant-Raghunatha is concerned, 40% of his share, i.e., 40% out of 40% which has fallen to his share shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank or Postal Authorities for a period of five years renewable from time to time. He is at liberty to draw the interest accrued thereon and remaining 60% of his share shall be released in favour of him. 22. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit 70% of the amount of compensation awarded by this Court and also awarded by the Tribunal in MVC.Nos.704 and 705/2015 with up to date interest thereon within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The impugned judgment and award dated 8.1.2016 passed by the Tribunal in MVC.Nos.703, 704 and 705/2015 is modified to the extent as indicated above. Award shall be drawn accordingly. Accordingly, all the appeals are partly allowed.