Judgment Mr. H.S. Madaan, J.:-Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the version ofclaimants are that on 26.2.2012, Sahil was going from his village Anwalto Kalanaur riding his Scooty having registration No.HR12Q-9446; Anilson of Inder Lal Jangra was also going behind him on his motorcyclehaving registration No.HR-12M-9679; Sahil was driving the Scooty at avery slow speed on his left hand side by obeying all traffic rules; at about8:50 p.m. when Sahil reached college turn, Kalanaur, then a truck bearingregistration No.RJ-29-GA-0089 was parked on the road without puttingthe parking lights or rear lights on and without side signals on; there wasno indication of the parking of the vehicle on the road; the vehiclescoming from the opposite side were giving heavy glare without dipperfrom the headlights; Sahil could not observe the truck parked on the roaddue to darkness and his Scooty hit the backside of the stationary truck,resultantly Sahil suffered multiple grievous injuries on his head and otherparts of the body; the accident was witnessed by Anil son of Inder Lal,who was following the Scooty of Sahil on his motorcycle and he with thehelp of passerby took Sahil to Civil Hospital, Kalanaur where the doctoron duty gave first aid to such injured and referred him to PGIMS Rohtakfor further treatment; on 29.2.2012 at night the doctors of PGIMS Rohtakreferred Sahil to Maharaja Aggarsen Hospital, New Delhi where he wasadmitted on 1.3.2012 at 12:00 a.m., ultimately he expired there on2.3.2012 at 2:00 a.m. succumbing to the injuries suffered by him in theroad side accident; FIR No.62 dated 1.3.2012 for the offences underSections 279, 337 IPC was registered against respondent No.1--ShankarLal--driver of the offending truck and he was sent up to face trial forcausing the accident. 2. Petitioners/claimants Sh.Bhagwan Dass Chawla--father andSmt.Sunil Rani--mother of deceased Sahil had brought a claim petitionunder Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against respondentsi.e. Shankar Lal--driver, Mukand Lal--owner and United India InsuranceCompany Ltd., Rohtak--insurer of the truck No.RJ-29-GA-0089,claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- along with interestbefore Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred toas the Tribunal). 3. 2. Petitioners/claimants Sh.Bhagwan Dass Chawla--father andSmt.Sunil Rani--mother of deceased Sahil had brought a claim petitionunder Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against respondentsi.e. Shankar Lal--driver, Mukand Lal--owner and United India InsuranceCompany Ltd., Rohtak--insurer of the truck No.RJ-29-GA-0089,claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- along with interestbefore Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred toas the Tribunal). 3. As per the case of the claimants, due to untimely and suddendeath of their son Sahil, they had suffered great mental shock; they werefully dependent upon the earnings of the deceased, who was a young-manof 21 years; a student of engineering and his future is very bright; he wasgiving tuitions to students of higher classes and was earning Rs.20,000/-per month and he used to hand over all his earning to his parents, thepetitioners. According to the petitioners/claimants they had spentRs.2,50,000/- on treatment, transportation of the dead body, last funeralrites etc. 4. On notice, all the three respondents appeared and filedwritten statements contesting the claim petition. Respondents No.1 and 2had filed a joint written statement wherein they raised various legalobjections and on merits denied the assertions in claim petitioncontending that their vehicle has been wrongly involved in the criminalcase by the police in collusion with the petitioners with an ulterior motive;as a matter of fact, no accident had been caused by respondent No.1 at anytime; that respondent No.1 was having a valid and effective drivinglicence and the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. 5. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.3--insurance company many legal objections were raised and statutorydefences were taken contending that the driver of the truck was notholding a valid and effective driving licence. 6.In the end, all the respondents prayed for dismissal of theclaim petition. 7. Issues on merits were framed. Both the parties were affordedadequate opportunities to lead evidence. 8. On conclusion of trial, the Tribunal vide award dated14.7.2014 accepted the petition partly granting compensation ofRs.3,35,000/- being 50% of total compensation calculated asRs.6,70,000/- in favour of petitioner No.2 and against the respondents,who were held liable to pay the same jointly and severally. Interest @ 8%per annum was also awarded from the date of filing of the petition till therealization. 8. On conclusion of trial, the Tribunal vide award dated14.7.2014 accepted the petition partly granting compensation ofRs.3,35,000/- being 50% of total compensation calculated asRs.6,70,000/- in favour of petitioner No.2 and against the respondents,who were held liable to pay the same jointly and severally. Interest @ 8%per annum was also awarded from the date of filing of the petition till therealization. The Tribunal had found it to be a case of contributorynegligence and for that reason only 50% of the compensation socalculated was awarded to the claimant No.2 since the deceased was alsofound responsible for the accident and his role in the accident wasassessed to be 50%. 9. However, the claimants were dissatisfied with thecompensation awarded to them and they had filed appeal before this Courtseeking enhancement of compensation. 10. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent No.3--insurance company, which appeared through counsel. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides goingthrough the record. 12. The Tribunal considering the fact that the deceased drivinghis Scooty had hit the truck parked on the road from behind has come tothe conclusion that deceased was also at fault in happening of the accidentand it was taken to be a case of contributory negligence. 13. That finding is being vehemently assailed by learned counselfor the claimants/appellants. He has contended that the respondents havenot taken any specific plea in that regard and no evidence was adduced bythem in proof thereof and the Tribunal was not justified in returning afinding. 14.Whereas learned counsel for the respondent--insurancecompany contended that facts and circumstances of the case clearly pointout that deceased had failed to exercise due care and caution while drivinghis Scooty and had hit the stationary truck from behind, therefore, theTribunal was justified in taking it as a case of contributory negligence. 15. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and goingthrough the record, I find that such conclusion reached by the Tribunalwas not justified. The accident in this case had taken place at night time at8:50 p.m. There is nothing on record to show that it was a well lit area andthe truck standing on the road could be seen from sufficient distance bythe other commuters of the road. The accident in this case had taken place at night time at8:50 p.m. There is nothing on record to show that it was a well lit area andthe truck standing on the road could be seen from sufficient distance bythe other commuters of the road. There is nothing on record to show thatthe rear lights and the parking lights of the truck had been switched onand some articles had been placed near and around it so as to indicate tothe other people using the road that a vehicle was parked ahead. It isspecific version of the claimants that the truck was standing on the roadwithout any parking or back light on, without any side signal and withoutany other indication of parking and due to glare of lights from the vehiclescoming from the opposite side, the truck was not visible. The respondentshave flatly denied the happening of accident. No specific plea has beentaken that sufficient indication had been given with regard to the parkingof the truck on the road or that road lights were on and functioning,therefore, the truck could be visible from a great distance. The claimantshad produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of theirversion, which has virtually gone unrebutted. Learned counsel forrespondents No.1 and 2 had closed the evidence after tenderingdocuments i.e. copy of driving licence Ex.R1, copy of insurance covernote Ex.R2 and copy of tourist permit as Ex.R3, whereas counsel for theinsurance company had also closed its evidence after tendering documenti.e. ration car Ex.R4. In that way, it was not proper and appropriate for theTribunal to observe that deceased had also contributed to the accidentattributing fault to him while driving his Scooty. The Tribunal has reachedconclusion of contributory negligence by conjectures, guesswork and onthe basis of assumptions and presumptions and not on the basis of theevidence available on record. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to judgmentSurinder Kumar Sehgal & Ors. Versus M/s New India Assurance Co. The Tribunal has reachedconclusion of contributory negligence by conjectures, guesswork and onthe basis of assumptions and presumptions and not on the basis of theevidence available on record. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to judgmentSurinder Kumar Sehgal & Ors. Versus M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2011(18)RCR(Civil) 886 by Delhi High Court wherein whiledealing with an accident case where the motorcycle of the deceased haddashed against stationary truck at night and the truck was standing on roadwithout any parking lights/indicators/reflectors on its back side, neitherany lantern nor red cloth was tied to truck indicating its presence on road,it was found to be a clear case of res ipsa loquitor and has observed thatdeceased had died due to negligence on the part of driver of the offendingvehicle. In that case neither owner nor driver of alleged offending vehicleappeared in witness box to contest the case, then the version of theclaimants with regard to manner in which the accident occurred hascorroborated by version recorded by the police was held to prevailobserving that negligence may be inferred therefrom. 17. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3--insurance company has placed reliance upon Raj Rani Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009(13)SCC 654 wherein the principle of 50:50 incases of contributory negligence was discussed. The ratio of the judgmentis to the effect that payment of lump sum amount is not a ground to deduct1/3rd from the compensation amount. It was just observed that since as perfacts of the case when the accident took place, the truck was stationarysome amount of negligence on the part of deceased could not be ruled out.No specific guidelines as to how the contributory negligence is to beconcluded are there in this judgment. 18. Another judgment referred to was Surinder Kaur and others Versus Kulwant Singh and others, 2014 ACJ 398 wherein dealing withthe aspect of contributory negligence, it was observed that a persondashing from the rear side of the bus must take a larger responsibility ofthe accident and the bus which must have suddenly stopped by brakingmust take a minor share of responsibility, as such negligence of thedeceased motorcyclist and the driver of the bus was apportioned as60:40%. 19. Again this judgment does not come to help of respondent--insurance company due to different facts. It is not a case of the deceaseddriving a Scooty hitting the truck since the driver had applied the brakessuddenly. 19. Again this judgment does not come to help of respondent--insurance company due to different facts. It is not a case of the deceaseddriving a Scooty hitting the truck since the driver had applied the brakessuddenly. Rather the accident had taken place due to wrong parking of thetruck on the road at night time without giving any indication that truckwas parked on the road. 20. Learned counsel for the respondent--insurance company hasfurther referred to judgments i.e. Subhash Chand and others Versus Satya Rani and others, 2014(5) RCR(Civil)265 and Nishan Singh & Ors. Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Regional Manager & Ors., 2018(2) RCR(Civil)891. However, those do not findapplication to the present case due to different facts and circumstancesand the context in which such observations had been made. 21. It is to be taken note of that FIR with regard to the accidentwas registered against respondent No.1--driver of the truck, who hasbeen sent up to face trial and as it comes out from the statement of PW4Ajit Singh, Criminal Aholmad, Shankar Lal(driver) is facing trial in theCourt of law after service of charge-sheet upon him. Therefore, the onlyreasonable conclusion which can be drawn is that it was respondent No.1--Shankar Lal, who was solely responsible for the accident by his wrongparking of the truck on the road without giving any indication that truckhad been parked there. 22. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.2is modified accordingly. 23. Now coming to the quantum part. The deceased was agedabout 20 years and 8 months at the time of his death in the accident, hisdate of birth being 16.6.1992. He was unmarried and as deposed by PW2Harish Kumar Mittal, Principal, Satpriya, Group of Institution, Jind Road,Rohtak Sdahil Chawla, he was a student of B.Tech Computer Science andEngineering. The Tribunal has assessed his income to be Rs.5,000/- permonth. However, no amount towards future prospects has been added. 24. In view of the ratio of authority National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and Ors.,  2017(4)RCR(Civil)1009, in such an eventuality 40% of the amount is to be addedtowards future prospects. Doing that the monthly income of the deceasedis taken as Rs.5,000 + 2,000 = Rs.7,000/-. 25. In terms of the ratio of authority Smt.Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., : 2009(3)RCR(Civil)77 the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% amount towardsself-expenses. Doing that the monthly income of the deceasedis taken as Rs.5,000 + 2,000 = Rs.7,000/-. 25. In terms of the ratio of authority Smt.Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., : 2009(3)RCR(Civil)77 the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% amount towardsself-expenses. Doing that the dependency of claimants comes out toRs.3,500/- per month, annual dependency comes out to Rs.3500 x 12 =Rs.42,000/-. 26. The Tribunal has used multiplier of 18, which keeping inview the age of the deceased has been properly used. Doing that thecompensation payable comes out to Rs.42000 x 18 = 7,56,000/-. 27. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- on acocunt oftransportation and Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses. However,in view of the ratio of authority National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and Ors.(supra), the claimants are entitled to getcompensation under conventional heads i.e. Rs.15,000/- on account ofloss of estate and Rs.15,000/- as funeral expenses, total Rs.30,000/-. Thetotal compensation comes out to Rs. 7,56,000 + 30,000 = 7,86,000/-. 28. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs.1 lakh onacocunt of providing treatment to the deceased. The same is kept intact.Thus the total compensation comes out to Rs.7,86,000 + 1,00,000 =8,86,000/-. 29. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,35,000/-.along with 8% interest as mentioned in the relief clause payable by all therespondents jointly and severally. The same is enhanced to Rs.8,86,000/-.The claimant No.2 would be entitled to get interest @ 7.5% per annumfrom the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization of theamount of Rs.8,86,000/-, payable by all the respondents jointly andseverally. Since the amount has been enhanced, the directions with regardto release of compensation amount to the claimant No.2 and with regardto deposit in the form of FDR shall stand modified proportionately. 30. With such modifications, the appeal is allowed partly withcosts.