JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. M.F.A.No.1391/2016 has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation, whereas, M.F.A.No.2368/2016 has been filed by the KSRTC being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.12.2015 and since, both the appeals arise out of the accident which took place on 26.01.2014 and the same arise out of a common judgment, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that deceased Chethan Shivakumar on 26.01.2014 at about 11.30 a.m. was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA03-HM-7305 and was proceeding from Sangam towards Kanakapura side and when he reached near Hulibele Janata Colony dinne, Kanakapura Sangam Road, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagar District, the driver of K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No.KA-40-F-061, which was coming from the opposite direction dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries in Government Hospital, Kanakapura. 3. The legal representative of the deceased thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation inter alia on the ground that the accident has taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the K.S.R.T.C bus. As a result of which, deceased Chethan Shivakumar lost his life. It was also pleaded that at the time of the accident, deceased was aged about 29 years and was employed as Project Manager at II-internal at Global e-business Operations Private Limited, Kundalahalli Village, K.R.Puram, Hobli, Bangalore. It was further pleaded that the jurisdictional police after completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.90,00,000/-. 4. The respondent filed the written statement in which inter alia it was pleaded that the bus was on a scheduled trip from Kanakapura to Nallahalli via Harobele Dam and the driver of the bus was driving the same slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road by observing the traffic rules. While the bus was proceeding on Kanakapura Sangam Road on a up gradient road, the deceased coming on the motor cycle on a down gradient road by driving the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner. While the bus was proceeding on Kanakapura Sangam Road on a up gradient road, the deceased coming on the motor cycle on a down gradient road by driving the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the bus after sensing some mishap took the bus to the extreme left side of the road and stopped the bus. Despite the aforesaid fact, the deceased could not control the speed of his motor cycle and came to the extreme right side of the road and dashed against the bus which was already stopped and caused the accident. It was also pleaded that the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus is in no way responsible for the accident and the deceased himself was solely responsible for the accident. It was also pleaded that the petition has been filed in order to seek wrongful gain from the K.S.R.T.C. 5. The claims tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed issues and recorded the evidence. The claimants in order to prove their case examined Mallikasingh as (PW1), Stephen Raj Radrigues as (PW2) and Manju Kumar as (PW3) and got exhibited as many as 40 documents viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P40. The respondent examined Shivakumar G.S. and H.S.Sanjanya and Sri.Siddegowda as RW1 to RW3 and got marked one document viz., Ex.R1. The tribunal on the basis of the material available on record inter alia held that the deceased had contributed to the causing of the accident to the extent of 60%, whereas, the driver of the bus had contributed to the extent of 40%. The compensation which was payable to the legal representative of the deceased was assessed at Rs.99,37,669/- and after apportionment of the liability, K.S.R.T.C. was directed to make payment of compensation of Rs.39,75,068/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization. Being aggrieved, K.S.R.T.C as well as the claimants are in appeal before us. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding with regard to contributory negligence recorded by the claims tribunal is based on surmises and conjectures. It is further submitted that even though Dinesh, Srikantha and Vijay Kumar have not been examined yet the tribunal has referred to their evidence. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding with regard to contributory negligence recorded by the claims tribunal is based on surmises and conjectures. It is further submitted that even though Dinesh, Srikantha and Vijay Kumar have not been examined yet the tribunal has referred to their evidence. It is further submitted that from perusal of Ex.P7 i.e., the sketch map, it is axiomatic that the deceased was driving the bike in a rash and negligent manner and there is no material on record to record the finding that the accident had taken place on the middle of the road. Our attention has also been invited to the fact that the Investigating Officer, Siddegowda (RW2) examined on behalf of K.S.R.T.C has been declared hostile. It is also pointed out that the aforesaid witness has confirmed the sketch map Ex.P7 in the examination-in-chief. Learned counsel for the Corporation has further pointed out that the tribunal grossly erred in adding an amount to the extent of 50% towards future prospects. In any case, the tribunal ought to have appreciated that there was no material on record to come to the conclusion that the deceased was on a permanent job. It is further submitted that the tribunal in the state of evidence on record ought to have held that the driver of the bus was not at all negligent in driving the vehicle as the bus was negotiating on a up gradient road and it was the duty of the deceased who was on a down gradient road to be cautious and he had an opportunity to avoid the accident. It is also urged that even though the claimants have produced the salary certificates viz., Ex.P23 to Ex.P35, however, the employer has not been examined. It is also submitted that an amount of Rs.80,000/- on account of conveyance allowance could not be added to the monthly salary of the deceased and a sum of Rs.2,85,000/-, which has been awarded under the conventional heads is on the higher side. 7. On the other hand learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that from the crossexamination of the Investigating officer viz., Siddegowda (RW2) it is evident that the accident has taken place in the middle of the road. 7. On the other hand learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that from the crossexamination of the Investigating officer viz., Siddegowda (RW2) it is evident that the accident has taken place in the middle of the road. It is further submitted that the deceased had a permanent job and therefore, the tribunal has rightly added a sum to the extent of 50% on account of loss of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of ‘NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD V. PRANAY SETHI’, AIR 2017 SC 5157 . It is also submitted that there is overwhelming evidence on record to show that the driver of the bus had contributed to the extent of 40% in causing the accident. 8. We have considered the submissions made on both the sides and have perused the record. The claimants in order to prove their case have examined the widow Mallika Singh as PW1. The aforesaid witness has stated in examination-in-chief that her husband deceased Chethan Shivakumar expired in a motor vehicle accident on 16.01.2014. It has further been stated by her that at the time of the accident, her husband was aged about 29 years and was earning a sum of Rs.70,000/- p.m. and was employed as Project Manager II-internal at Global e-business Operations Private Limited, Kundalahalli Village, K.R.Puram, Hobli, Bangalore. The aforesaid witness has been subjected to cross-examination extensively. However, no suggestion has been put to her that the documents with regard to the salary of the deceased which have been marked as Ex.P23 to Ex.P35 are not genuine. It has further been admitted by the aforesaid witness that her husband was an income tax assessee. PW2 viz., Stephen George Radrigues who is an eye witness to the accident has stated in para 2 of his evidence that he was riding another motor cycle from Sangam towards Bangalore and when they reached Hobli Janata Colony, Kanakapura Sangam Road, the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus which was coming from Kanakapura towards Nallahalli side took a turn on the right side without observing any traffic signal in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased Chethan Shivakumar, due to which, the accident took place and the deceased expired. It has further been stated by the aforesaid witness that the deceased Chethan was dragged by K.S.R.T.C. bus and sustained severe injuries. The aforesaid witness has been subjected to cross-examination. However, in the cross examination, the aforesaid witness has denied suggestion that the accident took place on account of negligence of the deceased Chethan Shivakumar. It has further been stated by him that he had seen the bus at a distance of 30 to 35 feet and has also denied the suggestion that the driver of the bus is not responsible for the accident. Another eye witness PW3 viz., Manju Kumar has made statement to the similar act in para 3 of his evidence. The aforesaid witness has also been subjected to crossexamination. However, nothing came to be elicited in his cross-examination with regard to causing of the accident. The driver of the bus viz., Chethan Shivakumar has been examined as RW1. In his cross-examination, the aforesaid witness has stated that in his complaint he has not stated that he had stopped the bus on the left side of the road and the rider of the motor cycle dashed the bus. Siddegowda viz., the Investigating Officer has been examined as RW2. He has admitted in the crossexamination that he had filed the charge sheet against the driver of the K.S.R.T.C bus. It has further been admitted by the aforesaid witness that the driver of the K.S.R.T.C bus had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased and later on dragged the motor cycle on the mud road and stopped the bus on the mud road. He has further admitted that the accident has taken place in the middle of the road. It is well settled in law 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. 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 ]. Therefore, merely on the basis of the position of the vehicle as shown in the spot mahazar Ex.P7 no inference can be drawn that the driver of the K.S.R.T.C bus was not guilty. From the evidence on record which we have referred to supra, it is evident that the accident took place in the middle of the road and the driver of the K.S.R.T.C bus who was driving the vehicle had an opportunity to avoid the accident. However, it appears that he failed to take necessary precaution. Further, since the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle on an up gradient road, therefore, it can safely be presumed that the speed of the bus must not have bee high and the deceased who was driving the motor cycle on a down gradient road could have avoided the accident by taking necessary precaution which he failed to take. For the aforementioned reasons, we uphold the finding recorded by the claims tribunal that the deceased was responsible to the extent of 60% in causing of the accident and the driver of the bus had contributed to the extent of 40% in causing of the accident. 9. Now we may advert to the quantum of compensation. From perusal of Ex.P35, it is evident that the deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs.5,28,288/- and after deduction of income tax and professional tax, the net salary of the deceased was Rs.47317/-, to which no challenge has been made on behalf of the K.S.R.T.C. There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased had permanent job as the employer was not examined. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD V. PRANAY SETHI’, AIR 2017 SC 5157 . Thus, 40% has to be added on account of future prospects. The monthly dependency comes to Rs.66,243/-. Out of the aforesaid amount 1/3rd amount has to be deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the monthly amount to which the deceased are entitled comes to Rs.44,162/-.The age of the deceased being 29 years, the multiplier of 17 is to be adopted. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.90,09,048/- on account of loss of dependency. The claimants are the widow and minor child and the mother. Therefore, n view of the law laid down in ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU RAM & ORS.’ (2018) 18 SCC 130 , which has been subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in ‘UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR AND ORS.’ IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2705/2020 DECIDED ON 30.06.2020, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Therefore, they are held entitled to a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-. In addition, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate, transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimants are held entitled for a sum of Rs. 91,59,048/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. The claimants shall be entitled to recover 40% of the aforesaid amount i.e., Rs. 36,63,619/- along with interest at the rate of 6% on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing of the petition till its realization from the K.S.R.T.C. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the claims tribunal for disbursement to the claimants. To the aforesaid extent, the award passed by the claims tribunal is modified. In the result, the appeals are disposed of.