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 insurer challenging the award dated 01.07.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola in M.A.C.P.No.64/2013. 2. The facts in brief are that it is the case of the respondents nos. 1 to 7 that on 15.02.2013 the father of respondent nos. 1 to 4 and husband of respondent no.5 was travelled on motor-cycle from Akola to Kapsi along with two pillion riders when a Maruti car coming from the opposite side which was owned by the respondent no.8 and insured with the present appellant gave a dash to the said motor-cycle. As a result of that accident, the father of respondent nos. 1 to 4 suffered injuries and succumbed to the same. On that premise, Claim Petition under Section 166 of the said Act came to be filed. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs.27,000/- per month and was aged about 35 years when the accident took place. The compensation was accordingly sought on that basis. The owner of the car denied that it was being driven rashly and negligently. The appellant in its written statement at Exhibit 18 took a plea that there were two pillion riders on the motor-cycle and that factor had resulted in the said accident. It was further pleaded that the driver of the car did not posses a valid driving licence. Hence, there was a breach of policy condition. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the car was rash and negligent while driving the said vehicle. The compensation was assessed at Rs.33,85,000/-. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation as granted the insurer has filed the present appeal. 3. Shri C.A. Anthony, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal committed an error in holding that the driver of the car alone was rash and negligent in driving the said car. He submitted that as per the First Information Report at Exhibit 37 there were two pillion riders along with the deceased. Under Section 128 of the said Act, only a single pillion rider was permissible and as there were two pillion riders that aspect had contributed to the accident. He submitted that as per the First Information Report at Exhibit 37 there were two pillion riders along with the deceased. Under Section 128 of the said Act, only a single pillion rider was permissible and as there were two pillion riders that aspect had contributed to the accident. Hence the driver of the car alone could not be held to be rash and negligent. The motor-cycle had also contributed to the said accident. Despite the fact that this plea was raised before the Claims Tribunal, the same has not been taken into consideration while adjudicating the claim for compensation. In that regard, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Kanti Devi Sikarwar Vs. Om Prakash, (2006) 4 MPLJ 291 and Angrejo Devi & Ors. Vs. Jai Parkash & Ors., (2014) 6 LawHerald(P&H) 5314 . It was then submitted that the compensation as assessed was on higher side. There was no evidence as to the income of the deceased and merely on the basis of oral evidence it was found that the income of the deceased was Rs.14,400/- per month. In absence of any documentary material in that regard the amount of income deserves to be reduced suitably. Further the amount towards future prospects has taken at 50% when in fact it should have been taken 40% considering the law as laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2018) 3 MhLJ 70 . It was thus submitted that on these counts the quantum of compensation deserves to be reduced. 4. On the other hand, Shri Anirudh Ananthakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 and Mrs. S.D. Paul, learned counsel appointed to represent the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 5 supported the impugned judgment. It was submitted that the Insurance Company could have examined either of the pillion riders to prove that the deceased was rash and negligent while driving the motor-cycle. No evidence was led by the insurer to prove that even the deceased was rash and negligent in that process. In absence of any such evidence being led, the Claims Tribunal rightly held the driver of the car to be rash and negligent. Reference was made to the First Information Report (FIR) and the spot panchanama in that regard. It was then submitted that the income of the deceased has been rightly taken into consideration. In absence of any such evidence being led, the Claims Tribunal rightly held the driver of the car to be rash and negligent. Reference was made to the First Information Report (FIR) and the spot panchanama in that regard. It was then submitted that the income of the deceased has been rightly taken into consideration. The witness examined by the claimants though cross-examined could not be disbelieved. Reasonable monthly income of the deceased was accordingly taken. It was however not disputed that the compensation ought to be adjudicated by considering the legal position as laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). It was thus submitted that the appeal was liable to be dismissed. 5. In view of aforesaid submissions, the following points arise for adjudication: (i) Whether the Claims Tribunal has rightly adjudicated the aspect of contributory negligence ? (ii) Whether the amount of compensation deserves to be reduced? 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and I have perused the records of the case. As per the written statement filed by the insurer at Exhibit 18, plea has been raised that in view of the fact that there were three persons travelling on the motor-cycle the same resulted in that accident and that there was a violation of the provisions of Section 128 of the said Act. As per the FIR at Exhibit 37, it is clear that besides the deceased there were two other persons who were injured in the said accident. The fact that there were two pillion riders is not seriously disputed. The question to be considered is whether by that fact itself it could be said that the motor-cycle had contributed to the said accident. In Kanti Devi (supra), the learned Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court considered somewhat similar circumstances in coming to the conclusion that as there was breach of provisions of Section 128 of the said Act, the motor-cycle in question had contributed to the accident to 30% in the cause of the accident. The negligence was accordingly assessed at 70% insofar as offending vehicle was concerned and 30% insofar as the motor-cycle was concerned. In somewhat circumstances, the learned Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has assessed the contributory negligence of the motor-cycle on which there were two pillion riders to be 50%. 7. The negligence was accordingly assessed at 70% insofar as offending vehicle was concerned and 30% insofar as the motor-cycle was concerned. In somewhat circumstances, the learned Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has assessed the contributory negligence of the motor-cycle on which there were two pillion riders to be 50%. 7. It is to be noted that the decision of the learned Single Judge of the M.P.High Court was considered by the Full Bench of the said High Court in Devisingh Vs. Vikramsingh and others, (2008) ACJ 393 while answering a reference as made. It was held that the violation of Section 128 of the said Act per se by a motorcyclist would not raise a presumption of contributory negligence on his part. In the order, the Full Bench held that the law as laid down in Kanti Devi (supra) was not good-law. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was thus overruled. It could thus be seen that mere fact that there were two pillion riders on the motor-cycle by itself would not lead to an inference that the motorcyclist had contributed to the accident in question. It would require some further evidence to be brought on record to conclude the aspect of the contributory negligence. As noted above, in the present case, the Insurance Company did not lead any evidence to substantiate its plea that the motorcyclist had contributed to the said accident. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the learned Member that the driver of the car was rash and negligent in the cause of accident is not liable to be interfered with. Point no.1 as framed is answered accordingly. 8. As regards the quantum of compensation the claimants had examined a government contractor in that behalf. He placed on record various documents and according to him, the deceased was paid Rs.8,000/- per month as well as for allowances Rs.4,000/- per month for doing work as a supervisor. It was observed that there was no effective cross-examination to suggest that the documents filed were false or concocted. Another witness examined was doing the business of selling buffaloes. After considering his evidence it was found that the income of Rs.3,000/- per month from sale of milk was reasonable. It was observed that there was no effective cross-examination to suggest that the documents filed were false or concocted. Another witness examined was doing the business of selling buffaloes. After considering his evidence it was found that the income of Rs.3,000/- per month from sale of milk was reasonable. Though the claimants had claimed the income of the deceased to be Rs.27,000/- per month, after considering the material on record, the amount of income was assessed at Rs.14,400/- per month. Considering the age of the deceased which was 38 years along with the evidence brought on record, this finding recorded with regard to his monthly income is reasonable not warranting any reduction. 9. While assessing the amount of compensation on that basis, the Claims Tribunal has taken future prospects at 50% the same ought to have been taken at 40% as held in Pranay Sethi(supra). This would give an amount of Rs.5,760/- per month. The gross monthly income would come to Rs.20,160/-. 1/5th of that amount is liable to be deducted towards personal expenses and after deducting Rs.4,032/-, the net income would be Rs.16,128/-. The annual income would thus come to Rs.1,93,536/-. In the light of age of the deceased, the multiplier of 15 is liable to be taken. This would give an amount of Rs.29,03,040/-. An amount of Rs.70,000/- is liable to be added on the conventional heads thus giving the total figure of Rs.29,73,040/-. This amount is accordingly rounded off to Rs.29,75,000/-. It is thus found that just and fair compensation to which the claimants would be entitled would be Rs.29,75,000/-. The same would include the amount granted towards no fault liability. The calculations as made in para 19 of the impugned judgment are not in accordance with law as laid down in Pranay Sethi and others (supra) and hence the figure of compensation as reached is liable to be reduced. Point no.2 is answered accordingly. 10. Considering the number of claimants, it is held that the claimant nos. 1 to 6 are entitled to 15% each of the amount of compensation, while claimant no. 7 is entitled to 10% of that amount. Accordingly, from the amount of compensation of Rs.29,25,000/-, the claimant nos. 1 to 6 will be entitled to receive Rs.4,38,750/- each and the claimant no.7 would be entitled to receive Rs.2,92,500/-. 1 to 6 are entitled to 15% each of the amount of compensation, while claimant no. 7 is entitled to 10% of that amount. Accordingly, from the amount of compensation of Rs.29,25,000/-, the claimant nos. 1 to 6 will be entitled to receive Rs.4,38,750/- each and the claimant no.7 would be entitled to receive Rs.2,92,500/-. It is to be noted that during the pendency of the appeal, on 15.03.2017 the claimants were permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.18,85,000/-. After that amount was withdrawn a grievance was made by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 that the said amount of Rs.18,85,000/- was taken only by respondent no.5 and that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 did not receive any share therein. This Court on 28.09.2018 had directed the respondent no.5 to deposit an amount of Rs.5,84,033/- in this Court. The said amount however was not deposited. An affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent no.5 on 19.10.2018 in which it was clearly stated that the amount of Rs.18,85,000/- was withdrawn by the respondent no.5 on behalf of all the claimants. The respondent no.5 expressed inability to deposit the amount as directed and instead of expressed readiness to add the names of respondent nos. 3 and 4 in the title deed of the property that was intended to be purchased from the amount as withdrawn. The fact remains that the respondent no.5 has admittedly withdrawn the aforesaid amount and that no share was given to respondent nos.3 and 4 herein. Hence the amount of Rs.18,85,000/- that has been withdrawn by respondent no.5 shall be treated as amount withdrawn on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2, 5 to 7. To enable disbursement of the balance amount of the compensation the entitlement shall be calculated by assessing the respective shares of the claimants. After calculating the amount of total compensation at Rs.29,25,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum, the balance amount shall be refunded to the appellant. The remaining amount of compensation with accrued interest shall then be transferred to the Claims Tribunal, Akola. The Claims Tribunal shall first disburse the amount of compensation to the respondent nos. 3 and 4 herein by giving them Rs.4,38,750/- each with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Thereafter the balance amount of compensation shall be disbursed to the respondent nos. 1, 2, 5 to 7. The Claims Tribunal shall first disburse the amount of compensation to the respondent nos. 3 and 4 herein by giving them Rs.4,38,750/- each with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Thereafter the balance amount of compensation shall be disbursed to the respondent nos. 1, 2, 5 to 7. In case the respondent no.5 desires to raise any dispute in this regard, she would have to first comply with the order dated 28.09.2018 by which she was called upon to deposit Rs.5,84,033/-. It is only thereafter that the Claims Tribunal shall consider any objection on her behalf. Accordingly the following order is passed. ORDER (i). The judgment dated 01.07.2016 in M.A.C.P.No.64/2013 is partly modified. It is held that the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.29,75,000/- which includes the amount of compensation towards no fault liability. (ii). The compensation be disbursed in the manner stated in para No.10 above. (iii) The First Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. (iv) Mrs. S.D.Paul, learned counsel appointed to represent respondent no.5 is entitled for fees of Rs.3,000/-.