JUDGMENT B.S. Walia, J. - This order shall dispose of two appeals i.e. FAO No.4544 of 2015 and 6636 of 2015 filed by the claimants/family members of the deceased Bharpur Singh seeking enhancement of compensation awarded. 2. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal) consolidated two claim petitions and disposed them vide common award dated 20.2.2015. The learned Tribunal took into account the age of the deceased as 39 years, income Rs.26,000/- per month, applied multiplier of 15 and by imposing deduction of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, besides by awarding Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of consortium and Rs.26,000/- towards funeral expenses, awarded compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- after assessing contributory negligence of the deceased at 75% and contributory negligence of the respondent-driver at 25%. Out of the award of Rs.9,00,000/-, the widow Gaganpreet Kaur was awarded Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of consortium and out of the remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/-, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded as compensation to Rajinder Singh being father and dependent on Bharpur Singh, while the balance sum of Rs.7,00,000/- was ordered to be shared equally amongst the widow Gaganpreet Kaur, son Jagmeet Singh and mother Ajaib Kaur. 3. Service of respondent No.1 i.e. owner of tractor trolley bearing Registration No.PB-49A-4191 was dispensed with by the order of this Court dated 21.7.2016. 4. None is present on behalf of respondent No.2-driver despite earlier having been represented by Mr. Gurpreet Singh Kaler, Advocate. Accordingly, respondent No.2 is proceeded against ex parte. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the finding of contributory negligence is legally unsustainable, therefore, the same is liable to be reversed, besides, future prospects are liable to be awarded. Thirdly, that despite there being four persons dependent on the deceased, deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased were made @ 1/3rd of the income of the deceased whereas the same ought to have been made @ 1/4th of the income of the deceased. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that no amount was awarded on account of loss of estate and that although the amount awarded on account of loss of consortium to the wife was liable to be reduced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.40,000/- yet even the son of the deceased was entitled to loss of parental consortium of Rs.40,000/-. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that no amount was awarded on account of loss of estate and that although the amount awarded on account of loss of consortium to the wife was liable to be reduced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.40,000/- yet even the son of the deceased was entitled to loss of parental consortium of Rs.40,000/-. Learned counsel further contended that the interest on compensation awarded @ 6% per annum was also on the lower side and was liable to be enhanced to 9% per annum. 7. It is not in dispute that the offending tractor trolley was loaded with sugarcane crop and the car struck the tractor trolley from behind at 9.30 PM on 14.12.2010. Although the evidence led by the appellants is very sketchy yet a perusal of the cross-examination of CW-1 Surinder Singh, who was a co-passenger in the ill fated Alto Car, reveals that it was the sugarcane which struck against the car, whereupon the trolley struck against the bonnet bumper of the car. Evidence on record further reveals that the accident took place in the middle of a 15 foot wide road of on one side of the divider and that there was a distance of about 100 meters between the tractor trolley and the car with speed of the car being around 50-60 kms per hour. No suggestion was put to the witness CW-1 Surinder Singh that the speed of the car was much more than 50-60 kms per hour or that it was incorrect that the sugarcane had first struck the car and thereafter, the tractor trolley had struck against the bonnet bumper of the car. 8. It is in the aforementioned background that negligence on the part of the parties has to be assessed. Admittedly, 9.30 PM on a cold wintery night in the middle of December would reduce the visibility especially in the area of the accident greatly. The fact that sugarcane first struck the car goes to show that the tractor trolley was overloaded with sugarcane. In the circumstances, it would be reasonable to presume that the reflectors and the lights on the rear of the trolley, if any, were not visible to the vehicle coming from behind. The fact that sugarcane first struck the car goes to show that the tractor trolley was overloaded with sugarcane. In the circumstances, it would be reasonable to presume that the reflectors and the lights on the rear of the trolley, if any, were not visible to the vehicle coming from behind. It is further in the examination in chief by way of affidavit of CW1 that the tractor trolley bearing Registration No.PB49A-4191 was loaded with sugarcane and was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver and that the driver of the tractor trolley suddenly applied brakes due to which the accident took place. Obviously, in the circumstances, the vehicle coming from behind without there being any indication of a vehicle going in front of it would bang into the vehicle going ahead on account of the vehicle going ahead suddenly coming to a dead stop. The tractor owner and driver also did not step into the witness box and did not lead any evidence to disclose the circumstances in which the accident took place and why brakes were applied suddenly. In the circumstances, finding of the learned Tribunal in paragraph No.14 of the award of there being contributory negligence and the car driver being more negligent, therefore, responsible for 75% of the negligence and the tractor driver being less negligent therefore, being liable for 25% of the responsibility for negligence resulting in the motor vehicular accident is liable to be modified. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company contended that admittedly, the car struck the tractor trolley from behind and as per the evidence of CW-1, the car was being driven at a speed of 50-60 kms per hour and was at a distance of 100 meters but it banged firstly into the sugarcane hanging out from the tractor trolley and thereafter into the trolley on account of braking of the tractor trolley. Learned counsel contends that in the circumstances, it is evident that the car driver was at fault for it, he had been going at a slow speed he could have avoided the accident. Besides, there was violation of Rule 23 of the Rules of Road Regulation 1989 which stipulates that a vehicle shall maintain sufficient distance from the other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop. Besides, there was violation of Rule 23 of the Rules of Road Regulation 1989 which stipulates that a vehicle shall maintain sufficient distance from the other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop. Rule 23 of the aforementioned Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') is reproduced as under: "23. Distance from vehicles in front.-The driver of a motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop." 10. Per contra learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon Regulations 16, 24 and 29 of the aforementioned Regulations. The same are reproduced as under: "16. Visibility of lamps and registration marks.-(1) No load or other goods shall be placed on any motor vehicle so as to mask or otherwise interrupt vision of any lamp, registration mark or other mark required to be carried by or exhibited on any motor vehicle by or under the Act, unless a duplicate of the lamp or mark so marked or otherwise obscured is exhibited in the manner required by or under the Act for the exhibition of the marked or obscured lamp or mark. (2) All registration and other marks required to be exhibited on a motor vehicle by or under the Act shall at all times be maintained in a clear and legible condition. 24. Abrupt brake.-No driver of a vehicle shall apply brake abruptly unless it is necessary to do so for safety reasons. 29. Projections of loads.-No person shall drive in any public place any motor vehicle which is loaded in a manner likely to cause danger to any person in such a manner that the road or any part thereof or anything extends laterally beyond the side of the body or to the front or to rear or in height beyond the permissible limit." 11. A perusal of Regulation 16 reveals that no load or other goods shall be placed on any vehicle so as to mask or otherwise interrupt vision of any lamp, registration mark or other mark required to be carried by or exhibited on any motor vehicle by or under the Act while Regulation 24 Stipulates that no driver of vehicle shall apply brake abruptly unless it is necessary to do so for safety reasons. Regulation 29 of the Regulations lays down that no person shall drive in any public place any motor vehicle which is loaded in a manner likely to cause danger to any person by extending laterally beyond the side of the body or to the front or to rear or in height beyond the permissible limit." 12. Admittedly, the sugarcane loaded in the tractor trolley was extending beyond the trolley on to the road as a result of which the car first banged into the sugarcane and thereafter, into the trolley. Regulation 24 lays down that no driver of vehicle shall apply brakes abruptly unless it is necessary to do so for safety reasons. It is the categorical stand of CW-1 that the tractor trolley driver applied brakes abruptly and that there was distance of about 100 meters between the tractor trolley and the car. Regulation 23 lays down that the distance between the two vehicles should be sufficient in order to avoid collision if the vehicle suddenly slow down or stops. The facts of the case go to show that the tractor trolley driver stopped suddenly. However, he did not step into the witness box to explain the manner in which the accident took place. On the other hand, as per CW-1, the deceased was at a distance of 100 meters and was driving the car at a speed allegedly of 50-60 kms per hour and that the car banged into the sugarcane loaded in the tractor trolley and thereafter into the tractor trolley. Thus, both the parties were at fault. Accordingly, I am of the view that as against finding of contributory negligence of 3/4th by the deceased car driver, ends of justice would be met if the finding of contributory negligence is apportioned in equal shares. 13. Thus, both the parties were at fault. Accordingly, I am of the view that as against finding of contributory negligence of 3/4th by the deceased car driver, ends of justice would be met if the finding of contributory negligence is apportioned in equal shares. 13. As per paragraph No.61(iv) of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others , (2017) 4 RCR(Civ) 1009 where the deceased was on a fixed salary, 40% of the established income minus the tax component is to be taken into account for computing the future prospects where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Since the deceased was admittedly on a fixed salary of Rs.26,000/- per month and was 39 years of age, therefore, 40% of his established income minus the tax component is to be added for working out compensation on account of future prospects. 14. Paragraph No.61 (viii) of the decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) lays down the amount of compensation on account of conventional heads. Accordingly, sum of Rs.26,000/- awarded on account of funeral expenses is liable to be scaled down to Rs.15,000/-. Likewise, sum of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded on account of loss of consortium to the widow is liable to be scaled down to Rs.40,000/-. Further, no amount was awarded on account of loss of estate. Accordingly, appellants are held entitled to Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of estate. Apart from loss of consortium to the widow of the deceased, son of the deceased is also entitled to Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of parental consortium in accordance with paragraph No.8.7 of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others decided on 18.09.2018 in Civil Appeal No.9518 of 2018. 15. Appellants are also entitled to interest @ 9% in view of decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sube Singh and another vs. Shyam Singh (dead) and others , (2018) 2 RCR(Civ) 131in which the accident being of the year 2009, interest was awarded @ 9% per annum. Since the accident in the instant case is of the year 2010, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to award interest @ 9% per annum. 16. Accordingly, in the light of the position as noted above, the appellants are held entitled to the following compensation: Sr. No. Head Amount assessed by Tribunal in Rs. Since the accident in the instant case is of the year 2010, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to award interest @ 9% per annum. 16. Accordingly, in the light of the position as noted above, the appellants are held entitled to the following compensation: Sr. No. Head Amount assessed by Tribunal in Rs. Amount assessed by this Court in Rs. 1 Monthly Income 26,000/- 26,000/- 2 Future prospects NIL 40%=10,400/- (26000+10400) 36,400/- 3 Deduction towards personal expenses of deceased. 1/3rd of total income 8700/- 1/4th of total income 27300/- (36400-9100) 4 Deduction towards contributory negligence 75% (17300-75%)= 4300/- (wrongly done at this stage, liable to be done at stage of award of total compensation) Nil 5 Multiplier applied 15 15 6 Compensation awarded 4300x12x15=7,74,000/- 27300x12x15=49,14,000/- 7 Loss of spousal consortium 1,00,000/- 40,000/- 8 Funeral expenses 26000/- 15000/- 9 Loss of estate Nil 15,000/- 10 Loss of parental consortium Nil 40,000/- 11 Total 9,00,000/- 50,24,000/- 12 Deduction qua contributory negligence Nil 50% 13 Compensation payable 9,00,000 25,12,000/- 17. Accordingly, in the light of the position as noted above, appellants are held entitled to the award of compensation of Rs.25,12,000/- as against compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal along with interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount with effect from the date of claim petition till the date of payment less amount, if any, already paid. 18. Needless to mention, tax liability, if any, qua future prospects shall be deducted in accordance with the decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Besides the compensation shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal after payment of Rs.40,000/- each to widow and son of the deceased on account of loss of spousal/parental consortium respectively. 19. Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of in the aforementioned terms. Award dated 20.02.2015 passed by the learned MACT, Ludhiana is modified to the extent as noted above.