JUDGMENT Alok Aradhe, J. - M.F.A.No.5118/2017 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, whereas M.F.A.No.939/2017 has been filed by the Corporation against the judgment dated 25.10.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the MACT' for short). Since, both the appeals arise out of the same accident and the same 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 Narayan Swamy on 29.04.2015 at about 5.30 p.m. was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA08-K-3948 and was traveling on Kolar Bangarpet Main Road. When he reached Aniganhalli Gate, suddenly driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA07-F-1586 came from the opposite direction, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, deceased Narayan swamy and pillion rider sustained severe injuries and deceased succumbed to the same. 3. The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act inter alia on the ground that the deceased was working as Cook and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 20 years and the accident took place on account of sole negligence on the part of the offending bus. The claimants claimed compensation to the extent of Rs.20,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The respondent filed the written statement in which inter alia it was pleaded that the driver of the bus is not responsible for the accident. It was also pleaded that the deceased was driving the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and lost control and dashed against the bus on the left side. It was further pleaded that the accident has taken place solely on account of negligence on the part of the deceased and the compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant and is excessive. 4. The Claims Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues. The claimants in order to prove their case examined claimant No.1 Chalapathy as PW1 and got exhibited documents viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. The respondent got examined one J.M.Nagaraj as RW1 and did not file any documentary evidence. 4. The Claims Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues. The claimants in order to prove their case examined claimant No.1 Chalapathy as PW1 and got exhibited documents viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. The respondent got examined one J.M.Nagaraj as RW1 and did not file any documentary evidence. The Claims Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 25.10.2016 inter alia held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. It was further held that the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, these appeal shave been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the corporation submitted that the driver of the motor cycle came beyond the median line of the road and dashed the right side of the bus. It is further submitted that the complaint was lodged by the father who was not an eye witness to the accident. It is further submitted that the claimants have not adduced any evidence with regard to manner of accident, whereas, the Corporation had examined the driver of the bus as RW1 who has stated the manner in which the accident has taken place. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to negligence of the bus is contrary to the evidence on record. It is also submitted that no evidence was adduced with regard to income of the deceased and therefore, his income has to be assessed on notional basis and the Tribunal grossly erred in adding a sum of 50% on account of future prospects. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants has invited the attention of this court to the sketch and IMV report and the findings recorded by the Tribunal and has submitted that the Tribunal has on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record has recorded the finding with regard to negligence of the driver of the bus. It is further pleaded that the Tribunal grossly erred in treating the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month only, therefore, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is grossly inadequate and deserves to be enhanced suitably. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is further pleaded that the Tribunal grossly erred in treating the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month only, therefore, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is grossly inadequate and deserves to be enhanced suitably. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is well settled in law that when an accident happens through the combined negligence of two persons, he alone is liable to the other who had the last opportunity of avoiding the accident by reasonable care, and who then knew or ought to have known of the danger caused by the other's negligence. [See: SALAMOND ON THE LAW OF TORTS, TWELFTH EDITION 1957 PAGE 439-441]. The general rule is that the vehicle should be driven at a speed which enables the driver to stop within the limits of his vision and failure to do this will almost always result in the driver being held, in whole or in part, responsible for the collision. [See: CLERK AND LINDSELL ON TORTS, ELEVENTH EDITION, 1954 PAGES 368-370]. It is equally well settled legal proposition that burden of proving negligence lies on the person who alleges it. However, facts of the accident may by themselves constitute evidence of negligence and to such a case the Doctrine of res ipsa loquitor apply which means the things speak for itself. The aforesaid rule is one of the exception to the general rule that burden of proving negligence lies on the person who alleges it. The Supreme Court in ' MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. LAKSHMAN IYER AND ORS, (2003) AIR SC 4182 held that the crucial question in case of contributory negligence is whether either party could by reasonable care, have avoided the consequences of other's negligence. 7. 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 is well settled in law that in a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act, the Tribunal has to take holistic view of the matter. A strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible and the claimants are required to prove their claim on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities and the test of standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied in a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act. (See MANGALA RAM Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, (2018) 5 SCC 656 ). 8. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal principles, we may examine the facts of the case in hand. Admittedly, in the instant case, the claimants have not adduced any evidence with regard to the manner in which the accident has taken place. However, from the evidence of the driver of the bus (RW1), it is evident that the driver of the motor cycle dashed the right side of the bus. Thus, the driver of the bus who was admittedly a trainee driver and was driving a heavy vehicle had the opportunity to see the driver of the motor bike approaching the bus and to avoid the accident. Thus, the driver of the bus with due diligence could have avoided the accident. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, we hold that driver of the bus as well as the deceased have contributed to causing of the accident to the extent of 50% each. Thus, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the accident took place solely on account of negligence of the driver of the bus is set aside. 9. Now we may advert to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants. The deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and was employed as a cook and was a bachelor. No evidence has been adduced by the claimants with regard to income of the deceased. 9. Now we may advert to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants. The deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and was employed as a cook and was a bachelor. No evidence has been adduced by the claimants with regard to income of the deceased. However, the fact that the deceased was employed as a cook and a skilled labour can even earn a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month, we assess the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/-per month. In view of law laid down by the constitution bench of Supreme Court in ' NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD V. PRANAY SETHI, (2017) AIR SC 5157 to the aforesaid amount 40% of the amount has to be added on account of future prospects. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.16,800/-, which is rounded off to Rs.17,000/-. Since, the deceased was a bachelor therefore, 50% of the amount has to be deducted on account of personal expenses. Therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.8,500/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased at the time of accident multiplier of 18' has to be adopted. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.18,36,000/- under the head of loss of dependency. 10. In view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in ' MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NANU RAM, (2018) ACJ 2782 , 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, Rs.40,000/- is awarded to each of the claimants on account of filial consortium. Thus, they are held entitled to a sum of Rs.80,000/- under this head. In addition, the claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimants are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.19,46,000/-. Needless to state that the aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum in peculiar facts of the case from the date of petition till the payment is made. To the aforesaid extent, the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.