JUDGMENT A.S. Chandurkar, J. - This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the said Act) has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation as awarded. 2. On 28-6-2000 when the husband of appellant No.1 who was a Driver on a truck was proceeding on Dhule Surat road, he was dashed by another truck owned by respondent No.1 herein and insured with respondent No.2 - Company. The said accident turned fatal and hence the claimants filed petition under Section 166 of the said Act seeking compensation of Rs.3,75,000/-. The owner of the offending truck filed his written statement and raised a plea that the deceased driver was rash and negligent in driving his truck. Similar stand was taken by the Insurance Company. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Judge of the Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that the negligence of the driver of the offending truck was to the extent of 70% and that of the deceased was 30%. Total compensation was assessed at Rs.4,00,000/- and the claimants were awarded 70% thereof being Rs.2,80,000/-. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. 3. Shri Asghar Hussain, learned Counsel for the appellant raised two fold contentions. Firstly, on the aspect of contributory negligence, it was submitted that the offending truck alone was responsible for the accident in view of the spot panchanama on record. That truck was found in the middle of the road and damage to the truck of the deceased was greater. As the driver of the offending truck was not examined, it was submitted that an adverse inference deserves to be drawn and said truck ought to be held entirely responsible for the accident. For said purpose, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision in Mangla Ram vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, (2018) 5 SCALE 363 . It was then submitted that the amount of compensation as granted was on a lower side. No provision was made for future prospects and lesser amount was awarded on the conventional heads. It was prayed that the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 4. Shri B. Lahiri, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 supported the impugned judgment. According to him, the aspect of contributory negligence was rightly assessed. No provision was made for future prospects and lesser amount was awarded on the conventional heads. It was prayed that the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 4. Shri B. Lahiri, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 supported the impugned judgment. According to him, the aspect of contributory negligence was rightly assessed. There was no further evidence which could be taken into consideration for concluding that the offending truck was alone responsible for the accident. He further submitted that the amount of compensation as awarded was reasonable in view of the certificate issued by the owner of the truck at Exhibit-57. It was thus submitted that the appeal was liable to be dismissed. 5. The following points arise for consideration: (1) Whether the aspect of contributory negligence has been rightly determined? (2) Whether the claimants are entitled for further compensation? 6. The learned Counsel for the parties have been heard at length and the record has been perused. The spot panchanama on record indicates the location of both the trucks. The offending truck was found in the middle of the road and it was loaded with fertilizer bags. The chassis of the truck that was driven by the deceased was found detached and bent. It was noted that the road was wide enough to permit both the vehicles to pass. Considering the location of the offending truck its contribution to the extent was assessed at 70%. I find this assessment by the Claims Tribunal to be reasonable. There is no evidence on record to alter that conclusion. Though it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the driver of the offending truck was not examined, that fact itself cannot lead to the conclusion that he alone had contributed entirely to the accident. In Mangla Ram (supra) the vehicles involved were a motorcycle and a jeep. It is on that basis that the aspect of contributory negligence has been determined. In absence of any other evidence on record, the assessment of negligence does not deserve to be modified. The point as framed is answered accordingly. 7. As regards the aspect of compensation, the salary certificate at Exhibit-57 indicates the amount of Rs.2,400/- per month being paid with Rs.80/- per day for outstation duty. On that basis, the monthly income has been taken at Rs.3000/-. The point as framed is answered accordingly. 7. As regards the aspect of compensation, the salary certificate at Exhibit-57 indicates the amount of Rs.2,400/- per month being paid with Rs.80/- per day for outstation duty. On that basis, the monthly income has been taken at Rs.3000/-. Further amounts are liable to be awarded by following the law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2018) 3 MhLJ 70 . Future prospects to the extent of 40% are found admissible. 1/4th amount thereof is liable to be deducted for personal expenses to be the size of the family. On that basis, figure of Rs.37,800/- is arrived at being the annual loss. By applying multiplier of 16 the total loss of income is Rs.6,04,800/-. By providing further amount of Rs.54,000/- towards conventional heads as Rs.16,000/- has already been awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the compensation would be enhanced to Rs.6,58,800/-. On that enhanced figure, the appellants would be entitled to 70% amount which is Rs.4,61,160/-. The point as framed is answered accordingly. 8. Accordingly, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No.414/2002 is partly modified. It is held that the appellants are entitled for further compensation of Rs.1,81,160/-. The amount of enhanced compensation be paid to the appellant No.1. The enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,81,160/- shall carry 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The First Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms. No costs.