JUDGMENT Alok Aradhe, J. - These appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) have been filed by the claimants against the judgment dated 04.01.2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal for short). MFA No.6656/2014 has been filed by the legal representatives of deceased Dhananjaya, whereas MFA No.640/2015 has been filed by injured Harish Kumar seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that deceased Dhananjaya in the night intervening 11.06.2011 and 12.06.2011 was riding a vehicle viz., Tata Sierra bearing registration No.KA05-M- 7977 and the injured Harish Kumar was occupant in the aforesaid vehicle. At about 1.00 a.m. on National Highway No.48, B.M.Road, when they reached Bharathalli and were proceeding further, a driver of the bus bearing registration No.KA01-D-3094, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the car. In the aforesaid accident, deceased Dhananjay succumbed to the injuries and the claimant R. Harish Kumar sustained grievous injuries. The legal representatives of deceased Dhananjay and the injured Harish Kumar filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act inter alia on the ground that deceased was aged about 29 years and was working as sales officer in M/s HBL Global Private Ltd., Bangalore and was earning monthly salary of Rs.26,885/-. The injured Harish Kumar pleaded in his petition that he was employed as Marketing Executive Leader in M/S Habitat Ventures and was earning monthly income of Rs.16,000/-. It was further pleaded that on account of injuries sustained in the accident, the injured had to take leave for three and half months. It was also pleaded that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Accordingly, the compensation was sought. 3. The respondent Nos.1 and 3 filed the written statement, in which inter alia it was admitted that respondent No.1 is the owner of the bus. However, it was pleaded that the aforesaid bus was insured with respondent No.2. In its written statement, the age, occupations and incomes of the deceased as well as injured were denied and it was pleaded that the compensation as prayed for is excessive and speculative. However, it was pleaded that the aforesaid bus was insured with respondent No.2. In its written statement, the age, occupations and incomes of the deceased as well as injured were denied and it was pleaded that the compensation as prayed for is excessive and speculative. The respondent No.2 pleaded that the driver of the bus was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of compensation and the accident took place due to contributory negligence of the deceased who was unmindful of the traffic and movement of the vehicles without following traffic rules. It was also pleaded that the police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the bus as well as the deceased and respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation. The respondent No.3 viz., the insurer of the vehicle which was being driven by the deceased pleaded that he was not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle as insurance policy was in 'Act policy'. It was also pleaded that since the additional premium was not paid, therefore, occupant of the car was not covered under the policy of insurance. 4. The claims tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed the issues and recorded the evidence. The claimants in order to prove their case examined three witnesses viz., Mahadevaiah (PW1), R.Harish Kumar (PW2) and Dr.S.Girish (PW3) and exhibited as many as 31 documents. The respondents examined one witness viz., Shivakumar G. (RW1) and exhibited copy of the insurance policy. The tribunal vide judgment dated 04.11.2014 inter alia held that driver of the bus had contributed to the extent of 70%, whereas the deceased had contributed to the extent of 30% in causing the negligence. It was further held that injured Harish Kumar had sustained ace tabular fracture right hip with minimal displacement and multiple injuries over other parts of the body, which are grievous in nature. It was held that the legal representatives of deceased Dhananjaya is entitled to a sum of Rs.8,86,278/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment of the amount, whereas, the injured was held entitled to a sum of Rs.1,29,928/- together with interest at the rate of 6%. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 5. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that deceased at the time of the accident was aged about 31 years and therefore, multiplier of 16 should have been applied and the tribunal grossly erred in applying multiplier of 11. It is further submitted that the tribunal grossly erred in not adding a sum of 40% to the income of the deceased on account of future prospects. It is further submitted that there was no evidence on record either to prove the plea of contributory negligence nor any issue was framed in this regard by the tribunal. In the absence of any evidence on record, the finding recorded by the tribunal that deceased had contributed to the extent of 30% in causing the accident is perverse in the state of evidence on record. It is also submitted that injured has been awarded a paltry sums of Rs.20,000/- on account of loss of amenities and Rs.2,000/- on account of attendant charges. It ought to have been appreciated that the injured had suffered 20% disability of the right lower limb and therefore, the compensation should have been awarded on account of loss of future income. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the accident took place on the middle of the road and on the basis of the evidence on record, the tribunal has rightly drawn the inference with regard to contributory negligence. It is further submitted that the question of loss of future income does not arise as the claimant has continued in employment. It is also argued that the amount of compensation awarded by the claims tribunal is just and proper. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that respondent No.3 has rightly been exonerated by the tribunal. 7. We have considered the submissions made on both the sides and have perused the record. A division Bench of this court in ' SHARADABAI VS. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, (1987) ILR(Kar) 2730' has held that in order to discharge the burden of proof with regard to contributory negligence, it is unnecessary for the propounder of that defence to adduce evidence about the matter and contributory negligence can be and very often is inferred from the evidence already adduced by the claimants or from the perceptive facts. However, the finding with regard to contributory negligence has to be recorded on the basis of proper consideration of the pleadings and legal evidence adduced by both the parties and the same cannot be based merely on police records. [See: ' MINUROUT VS. SATYA PRADYUMNA MOHAPATRA, (2013) 10 SCC 695 ' AND ' SARALA DEVI VS. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD, (2014) 15 SCC 450 ' ]. It has further been held that mere position of the vehicles after the accident as shown in scene mahazar cannot be a substantial proof as to 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 the 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. In absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the court cannot give any specific finding about negligence on the part of any individual. [SEE:' JIJU KURUVILA AND ORS. VS. KUNJUJAMMA MOHAN AND ORS, (2013) 9 SCC 166 ' ]. 8. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal position the evidence on record may be seen. The claimants have examined injured eye witness R.Harish Kumar as PW2 who has stated that bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and suddenly without any signal to turn and hit the car and caused the accident. It has further been stated by him that the accident has been caused solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased who was the driver of the car. In cross examination also, aforesaid witness has stated that car was being driven at a speed of 40 to 50 Kms along the left side of the road and was proceeding at a distance of 4 feet away from the median. In cross examination also, aforesaid witness has stated that car was being driven at a speed of 40 to 50 Kms along the left side of the road and was proceeding at a distance of 4 feet away from the median. The suggestion given to the said witness that the deceased was driving the car at the speed of 100 kms and the suggestion that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car has been denied in the cross examination. The insurance company, which had taken the plea of contributory negligence has not stepped into witness box and has not examined any independent witness, as has been observed by the tribunal itself in para 11 of the judgment. However, the tribunal has relied on Ex.P4 i.e., the copy of the sketch as well as Ex.P3 i.e., spot mahazar and has relied on police records to attribute contributory negligence and had recorded the finding with regard to contributory negligence as follows: "On perusal of police records it shows that the deceased Dhananjaya who was the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA- 05-M-7977 was also contributed the negligence in causing the accident. The 2nd respondent in order to prove the defence has not stepped into the witness box and also not examined any independent witnesses including the driver of the bus. Considering the manner in which the accident was occurred and by considering the oral evidence of PW2 this tribunal is of the view that the driver of the bus was contributed negligence to the extent of 70% and the deceased was contributed negligence to the extent of 30% in causing this accident." 9. The aforesaid finding is cryptic and is based on spot mahazar as well as sketch map and in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in JIJU KURUVILA AND Ors. supra the aforesaid finding cannot but be termed as perverse. There is no evidence on record to prove the plea of contributory negligence. Therefore, the finding recorded by the tribunal that the deceased had contributed to the extent of 30% in causing the accident is hereby quashed. 10. Now we may advert to the quantum of compensation awarded to the legal representative of the deceased Dhananjaya. The deceased at the time of the accident was aged about 31 years. Therefore, the finding recorded by the tribunal that the deceased had contributed to the extent of 30% in causing the accident is hereby quashed. 10. Now we may advert to the quantum of compensation awarded to the legal representative of the deceased Dhananjaya. The deceased at the time of the accident was aged about 31 years. His monthly salary was Rs.26,685/-, which is evident from Ex.P15 i.e., copy of Form No.16 filed for the assessment year 2011-12, which shows that tax was deducted at the source for the aforesaid period the deceased was paid gross salary of Rs.5,35,351/- and total tax of Rs.38,592/- was deducted from source. The yearly income after deduction of the tax has been determined by the tribunal at Rs.2,56,176/-. In view of law laid down in ' NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD V. PRANAY SETHI, (2017) AIR SC 5157 , 40% of the amount has to be added on account of future prospects. Thus, the amount comes to Rs.3,58,646/-. Out of the aforesaid amount, 50% of the amount has to be deducted on account of personal expenses. Thus, the yearly dependency comes to Rs. 1,79,323/- and the multiplier of 16' has to be adopted. Therefore, the amount due to the legal representatives on account of loss of dependency comes to Rs.28,69,171/-. In addition the legal representatives shall be entitled to Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium and further sum of Rs.30,000/- on account of funeral expense and loss of estate. Thus, the claimants in M.F.A.NO.6656/2014 are held entitled to sum of Rs.29,39,171/-. 11. The claimant in MFA No.640/2014 has been awarded a sum of Rs.1,29,928/-. The injured claimant has sustained ace tabular fracture right hip with minimal displacement. The claimant has been awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of loss of amentias in life and happiness and has been awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- on account of conveyance, attendant charges, food and nourishment. Taking into account the injuries sustained by the claimant, the amount awarded under the head of loss of amenities is on the lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. In the facts of these, the amount awarded under the head of conveyance, attendance charges, food and nourishment Rs.50,000/- is on the lower side, which is enhanced by Rs.40,000/-. Taking into account the injuries sustained by the claimant, the amount awarded under the head of loss of amenities is on the lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. In the facts of these, the amount awarded under the head of conveyance, attendance charges, food and nourishment Rs.50,000/- is on the lower side, which is enhanced by Rs.40,000/-. The amount of compensation enhanced by this court in both the appeals shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment. To the aforesaid extent the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are held liable to pay the entire amount of compensation. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the claims tribunal. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.