JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. S. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. 2. This appeal by the claimant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the judgment and award dated 03.05.2013 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Guwahati in MAC Case No.1881/10. This appeal is for enhancement of the award. 3. The brief facts as stated in the claim petition is that on 11.03.2010 predecessor of the appellants, namely Late Binod Shyam was travelling from Sibsagar to Jorhat on 11.03.2010 in the Indigo car owned by his wife i.e. the appellant No.1 herein. He was accompanied by the appellants No.1, 2 and 3. When the car arrived near Charing Kakuri, all of a sudden the truck bearing registration No.AS-01/C-8029 coming from the opposite direction collided with the vehicle of the deceased. As a result of the accident, he had sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to his injuries on the same day. The driver of the offending truck did not contest the case. The respondents No.1 and 2 had filed their written statement and denied their liability. The following issues were framed for trial:- 1. Whether victim, Late Binod Shyam, died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the alleged road accident dated 11.03.10 at Charing Kakuri under Gaurisagar Police Station, involving vehicle No.AS-01/C-8029 and AS-03/G-6206 and whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicles? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to receive any compensation and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount will be payable? 4. The appellant No.1 was examined as PW-1. The UD Assistant of the Office of the Deputy Director, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Diphu was examined as PW-2 to prove the income of the deceased. The following documents are exhibited by the appellant:-(1) Accident Information Report (Ext-1), (2) Post Mortem Report (Ext2), (3) Certified Copy of the FIR (Ext-3), (4) Certified Copy of the Charge-sheet (Ext-4). 5. In respect of issue No.1, the learned Tribunal relied on the FIR where it was stated that the accident was a head-on-collusion. The following documents are exhibited by the appellant:-(1) Accident Information Report (Ext-1), (2) Post Mortem Report (Ext2), (3) Certified Copy of the FIR (Ext-3), (4) Certified Copy of the Charge-sheet (Ext-4). 5. In respect of issue No.1, the learned Tribunal relied on the FIR where it was stated that the accident was a head-on-collusion. The learned Tribunal by referring to the time of the accident, being 3:15 p.m., held that no intervening factor was brought on record, as such, it was held that the accident took place due to contributory negligence of the driver of both the vehicles. Therefore, as it was held that there was a head-on-collusion on a broad day light, the learned Tribunal held that it really established that there was contributory negligence of the deceased to the extent of 50%. Relying on the Salary statement (Ext.-7), it was held in respect of issue No.2 that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.22,148/-and a sum of Rs.208/-was liable to be deducted for professional tax, as such, his salary was taken to be Rs.21,940/-. By applying the multiplier of 13 as the deceased was below 50 years, a sum of 30% enhancement was made towards future prospects and, as such the salary together with addition of 30% of future prospects, the monthly income was taken to be as Rs.28,500/-and after deduction of ¼th of his income towards personal expenses, the annual dependency was computed at Rs.2,56,500/-and the assessment of compensation was done as under:- Loss of dependency 256500 X 13 =Rs.33,34,500/- Funeral expenses =Rs.5000/- Loss of consortium =Rs.10,000/- Loss of estate =Rs.5000/- Total =Rs.33,54,500/- (Rupees Thirty three lakh fifty four thousand and five hundred only). 6. The respondent No.1, being the insurer of the truck was held liable to pay compensation to the extent of 50% and issue No.2 was decided accordingly. The said amount was awarded with the interest of 6% per annum. 7. On the basis of the submissions by the learned counsel for both sides, the facts relating to the death of the deceased, his salary, etc., are undisputed and the issue of enhancement of the award is the only contention raised by the appellant. The only point of determination which arises in this appeal is that whether the appellant is entitled to any enhancement of the award? 8. The only point of determination which arises in this appeal is that whether the appellant is entitled to any enhancement of the award? 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent No.1 did not led any evidence to prove contributory negligence of the vehicle being driven by the deceased and, as such, the learned Tribunal had committed gross error by arriving at a finding of contributory negligence in the absence of examination of the driver of the vehicle and in the absence of any evidence of respondent No.1. 9. It is also submitted that in the absence of any direct or any believable evidence, there was no way that the learned Tribunal could have concluded that the deceased was also responsible for the accident, and therefore, it is submitted that the finding of rash and negligent driving on part of the deceased was not sustainable and such finding was required to be set aside. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following cases:- 1. Sonafuli Deka (Smti) Vs. Member, MACT, Kamrup and others 1998 (2) GLT 233, 2. Jiju Kuruvila and ors Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and others, (2013) 9 SCC 166 , 3. Syed Sadiq and ors Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 735 . 10. The relevant paragraphs 5 and 11 of the case of Sonafuli Deka (supra) and para 20.5 of the case of Jiju Kuruvila and ors (supra) and para 29 of Syed Sadiq (supra) are quoted below:- (1) Paras 5 and 11 of the case of Sonafuli Deka(supra) “5. On the evidence as noted above, the learned Member has concluded contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, overlooking a vital fact that none of the respondents, not even the driver has entered the witness box, nor examined any witness in support of their case. 11. In all cases it is the duty of the person over taking to allow an adequate margin of safety between his vehicle and the vehicle he is trying to overtake and to overtake only when he can do so without causing danger to others. The case at hand is one where the driver of the vehicle in defiance of the signal given to him to stop, yet proceeded ahead. In such a case there can be no question of contributory negligence. The case at hand is one where the driver of the vehicle in defiance of the signal given to him to stop, yet proceeded ahead. In such a case there can be no question of contributory negligence. He should have used reasonable care when the road was under repair and a heap of boulders were lying in one side of the road, he should have seen it to swerve outward so as to knocked down other vehicle, cyclist or pedestrian. It has come in evidence that the cyclist who was ahead of the deceased could proceed further savely having seen the cyclist. It was again the duty of the driver of the vehicle to allow sufficient space that means his vehicle and the cyclist so as to deal with ordinary exigencies. The negligence was solely on the part of the driver of the offending chassis. The finding arrived at by the learned Member cannot be subscribed to in view of the clear facts emerging from evidence available on record. The learned Tribunal has fell into a patent error ignoring the scenario of the accident as emerges from the evidence and can well be visualized. It may also be noted that the driver of the vehicle has not entered into the witness box and yet the finding of contributory negligence which is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed.” (2) Para 20.5 of the case of Jiju Kuruvilaandors(supra) “20.5. The mere position of the vehicles after accident, as shown in a Scene Mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and its direction etc. depends on number of factors like speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other, etc. From the scene of the accident, one may suggest or presume the manner in which the accident caused, but in absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver. From the scene of the accident, one may suggest or presume the manner in which the accident caused, but in absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver. In absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the Court cannot give any specific finding about negligence on the part of any individual.” (3) Para 29 of Syed Sadiq(supra) “On the matter of extent of contribution to the accident, it is held by the Tribunal that the appellants/claimants herein should have taken utmost care while moving on the highway. Looking at the spot of the accident, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants/claimants were moving on the middle of the road which led to the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that though the tractor has been charge sheeted under sections 279 and 338 of IPC, but given the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants/claimants also contributed to the accident to the extent of 25%. The High Court without assigning any reasonconcurred with the findings of the Tribunal with respect to contributory negligence. We find it pertinent to observe that both the Tribunal and the High Court erred in holding the appellants/ claimants in these appeals liable for contributory negligence. The Tribunal arrived at the above conclusion only on the basis of the fact that the accident took place in the middle of the road in the absence of any evidence to prove the same. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the contribution of the appellants/claimants in the accident is not proved by the respondents by producing evidence and therefore, the finding of the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence, which has been upheld by the High Court, is set aside.” 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the plea of the respondent No.1 was of denial of its liability. It is submitted that if the respondent No.1 would have taken plea of contributory negligence it could have amounted to an admission of some part of the liability. Accordingly, it is submitted that although the respondent No.1 did not take such plea of contributory negligence but from the evidence of the accident as given by the appellant No.1, it was sufficient to establish the extent of contributory negligence on the part of deceased. Accordingly, it is submitted that although the respondent No.1 did not take such plea of contributory negligence but from the evidence of the accident as given by the appellant No.1, it was sufficient to establish the extent of contributory negligence on the part of deceased. It is submitted that the accident took place at about 3:15 p.m. which was a broad day light. It is submitted that it is not the evidence of the appellant that the offending truck had suddenly appeared or that there was a side impact, which caused the accident, but it was the well established case of the appellant that the head-on-collusion had taken place. In this regard it is further submitted that if the offending vehicle was coming from an opposite direction in a wrong lane, the deceased did not do anything to prevent the accident, otherwise the impact would be on the side of the vehicle and that there would not be a head-on-collusion. In support of his contention, the respondent No.1 has placed reliance on the case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidya Dhar Dutta and others (2006)3 SCC 242 .The relevant para 12 is quoted below: “12. Adverting to the next contention of the claimants, no doubt the High Court has not dealt with the point in issue. However, we have noticed the reasoning and finding of the MACT recorded under Issue No.2. It is the evidence of Rajesh Kumar Gupta-P.W.2 who was travelling in the Maruti car along with the deceased Raj Kumar Dugar on the day of the accident that he also suffered some injuries in the said accident. He stated that while coming from Digboi, the Maruti car being driven by the deceased met with an accident at a place near Kharjan Pol. Before the accident, Raj Kumar Dugar noticed a passenger bus coming from the opposite direction and the movement of the bus was not normal as it was coming in a zigzag manner. The Maruti car being driven by the deceased Raj Kumar Dugar and the offending bus had a head- on collision. The MACT has not accepted the evidence of P.W. 2 to prove that the driver of the offending bus was driving the vehicle in abnormal speed. The Maruti car being driven by the deceased Raj Kumar Dugar and the offending bus had a head- on collision. The MACT has not accepted the evidence of P.W. 2 to prove that the driver of the offending bus was driving the vehicle in abnormal speed. If the bus was being driven by the driver abnormally in a zigzag manner, as P.W. 2 wanted to believe the Court, it was, but natural, as a prudent man for the deceased to have taken due care and precaution to avoid head-on collision when he had already seen the bus from a long distance coming from the opposite direction. It was head- on collision in which both the vehicles were damaged and unfortunately, Raj Kumar Dugar died on the spot. The MACT, in our view, has rightly observed that had it been the knocking on one side of the car, the negligence or rashness could have been wholly fastened or attributable to the driver of the bus, but when the vehicles had a head-on collision, the drivers of both the vehicles should be held responsible to have contributed equally to the accident. The finding on this issue is a finding of fact and we do not find any cogent and convincing reason to disagree with the well-reasoned order of the MACT on this point. The MACT has awarded interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of payment. It is a discretionary relief granted by the MACT and, in our view, the discretion exercised by the MACT cannot be said to be inadequate and inappropriate.” 12. The facts relating to the accident in the present case as well as in the case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar(supra)appears to be similar. In both the cases, the accident victim died in a small car and there was a head-on-collusion by a large vehicle i.e. a truck in the present case and a bus in the cited case. In both the cases the evidence was given by the co-passengers who were the eye witnesses to the accident. The finding of the Hon’ble Apex Court as given in para 12 as already been quoted above which is self explanatory. In both the cases the evidence was given by the co-passengers who were the eye witnesses to the accident. The finding of the Hon’ble Apex Court as given in para 12 as already been quoted above which is self explanatory. The categorical finding of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar(supra) was that when the vehicle had a head-on-collusion, the driver of both the vehicles should be held responsible to have equally contributed to the accident. On a perusal of the case of Jiju Kuruvila and ors(supra), it appears that both the cited cases as well as the case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar(supra)were delivered by the Bench of similar strength of two Hon’ble Judges. It appears that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar(supra)was not placed before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jiju Kuruvila and ors (supra). Under the circumstances, this Court is inclined to follow the ratio laid down in the previous judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar (supra), which has the effect of having more binding force than the decision given by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sonafuli Deka(supra). So accordingly, this Court is of the view that as there is evidence of head-on-collusion, which can be seen in the certified copy of the Charge-sheet (Ext-4), as well as from the certified copy of the FIR (Ext-3), the ratio of the case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar(supra)is found to be applicable and therefore this Court does not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal, holding the respondent No.1 liable for only 50% of the award and the balance 50% of the award was not granted on the account of contributory negligence of the deceased. 13. 13. However, having seen that in the judgment and award impugned herein, funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate was awarded with a lower side, this Court is of the view that the award under the conventional heads has been well settled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi, MANU/SC/1366/2017 : (2017) 8 Supreme 107 , award under the aforesaid conventional heads is liable to be enhanced from Rs.5000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5000/- respectively to Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses, Rs.14,000/- on account of loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of estate. So accordingly, the award in respect of these 3 (three) conventional heads stands enhanced by Rs.50,000/-. As a result, the award passed by the learned Tribunal stands enhanced by a sum of Rs.50,000/- and the total award would now stand enhanced to Rs.34,04,500/- (Rupees Thirty four lakh four thousand five hundred only). 14. Relying on the ratio laid down in the case of Municipal Corporation Delhi Vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association, (2011) 14 SCC 481 , the interest on the awarded sum stands enhanced to 9%, which would be paid from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. on 01.11.2010, till the award is fully satisfied. 15. The appeal therefore stands partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. 16. The respondent No.1 shall deposit the enhanced awarded amount within a period of 1 (one) month from today before the Registry of this Court. The said amount would be disbursed to the appellant No.1 on being duly identified by the learned counsel for the appellant. 17. Let the LCR be returned back.