JUDGMENT : 1. M.A. No. 432/2016, M.A. No. 431/2016 & M.A. No. 430/2016 are listed before this Bench on the Board, which are at different serial, on the joint request of the parties i.e. Manish Kumar for the appellants, Mr. Nikhil Ranjan for the respondents/claimants/applicants and Mr. Ashutosh Anand, for the respondent -IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited. 2. All the three Miscellaneous Appeals are arising out of one accident, in which three persons died and the claimants have preferred separate compensation case. 3. The claimants of deceased Chotu Ganjhu have preferred Compensation Case No. 184/2013 and the Award has been assailed by the Insurance Company in M.A. No. 432/2016. 4. The claimants of deceased Ram Kishun Ganjhu have preferred Compensation Case No. 185/2013 and the Award has been assailed by the Insurance Company in M.A. No. 431/2016. 5. The claimants of deceased Sudarshan Ganjhu have preferred Compensation Case No. 186/2013 and the Award has been assailed by the Insurance Company in M.A. No. 430/2016. 6. All these Miscellaneous Appeals are arising out of common judgment passed by Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi on 22.04.2016 and as such, on the joint prayer, this Court is disposing of all the three miscellaneous appeals together, as they are preferred by appellant – New India Assurance Company, as such, there are common grounds in all these appeals. 7. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Manish Kumar, in all the three appeals, Mr. Nikhil Ranjan for the claimants/applicants and Mr. Ashutosh Anand appearing for the respondent - IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. 8. The brief facts of the case is that all the three deceased namely, Chotu Ganjhu, Sudarshan Ganjhu and Ram Kishun Ganjhu were returning from Khelari to their respective houses on 05.06.2013 triple riding on a motorcycle bearing registration No. JH-01L-5047 at 4.00 P.M. When they reached near Khuni More on Khelari-Bijupara Road, the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No.JH-01AB-5155, driven rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, because of that all three persons fell down and two persons namely, Ram Kishun Ganjhu and Sudershan Ganjhu died on the spot and one person namely, Chotu Ganjhu was brought to RIMS, Ranchi and also died during treatment. An F.I.R. has been lodged at Chanho Police Station on the fardbeyan of Chowkidar namely, Vishwanath Mahali vide Chanho P.S. Case No.53 of 2013 under Sections 279 and 304A of the I.P.C. The deceased Ram Kishun Ganjhu and Chotu Ganjhu were skilled Mason and deceased, Sudarshan Ganjhu was a vegetable seller. The learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/-. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly submitted that the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No. JH-01L-5155 was insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited vide Policy No.54030231120100001558 for the period from 25.07.2012 to 24.07.2013 and admittedly the accident took place on 05.06.2013 within insured period. 10. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that he is assailing the impugned award on two counts: (i) In the case of Chameli Devi Vs. Jivrail Mian reported in 2019 (4) TAC 724 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the income of a person to be Rs. 5,000/-per month, if there is no proof of document regarding the income, but the Tribunal has assessed the quantum of compensation considering the income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/-. (ii) That the contributory negligence has not been considered by learned Tribunal as there is collision of motorcycle upon, which all these three persons were moving against the law and dashed with Bus. 11. As such, the issue of income and contributory negligence was also issue before the Tribunal, as such, order may be set aside. 12. Learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Nikhil Ranjan has not filed any cross appeal or appeal for enhancement but has orally submitted that amount may be enhanced because of the fact that future prospect of the deceased has not been considered and under conventional head instead of Rs.70,000/-, the Tribunal has paid Rs.45,000/-, as such, the amount may be enhanced and these points are common in all three appeals. 13. On reply, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Manish Kumar has relied upon paragraph-8 of the judgment passed in the case of Ranjan Prakash and Others Vs. Divisional Manager and Anr. 13. On reply, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Manish Kumar has relied upon paragraph-8 of the judgment passed in the case of Ranjan Prakash and Others Vs. Divisional Manager and Anr. reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639 and submitted that the Court has power to examine the fact by applying the relevant principle to determine the just compensation, but there are three conditions: (i) If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismissed the appeal, if it is by the owner or Insurance Company and the present case does not fall in this category. (ii) If the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement but allow any appeal by the owner/Insurance Company for reduction and this is also not the case of the claimants. (iii) The Hon’ble High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by the owner/Insurer nor can reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimant seeking enhancement for compensation since the case of the claimant also does not fall in third category, as such, this Court may not interfere with the award. Otherwise the interest granted @ 9% per annum shall be considered by this Court and then the compensation will be reduced and if the future prospect and conventional is added marginal change will come, as such, this Court may not exercise the power in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash (Supra). 14. Learned counsel for the claimants has further submitted that the question of contributory negligence has been recently decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Siddique V. National Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2020 (3) SCC 57 and has referred paragraphs-11 to 13, where the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in absence of any evidence to show that wrongful act on part of the deceased victim contributed either to the accident or to the nature of injuries sustained, the victim can not be held guilty of contributory negligence. 15. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents/applicants has submitted that in absence of any evidence, the Tribunal has rightly not deducted any amount on account of contributory negligence. The Insurance Company-appellant has not brought any evidence on record to suggest that there was a contributory negligence. The appellant-Insurance Company has failed to prove that when the motorcyclist were hit by Bus from the back, how the deceased/motorcyclist contributed in the negligence, as such, the issue of contributory negligence may not be considered. 16. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Nikhil Ranjan and learned counsel for the respondent, IFFCO Tokico General Insurance Company Limited, Mr. Ashutosh Anand in all these three appeals. 17. Since common points are involved in these appeals, this Court is disposing these appeals by this common judgment. 18. The fact and issue are not disputed that three persons died in a motorcycle accident, while they were travelling triple ride on motorcycle, which was hit by Bus, insured before the appellant-Insurance Company. Since no evidence or material has been brought on record to show contributory negligence of all these three deceased in the motorcycle accident, as such, in view of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Siddique (Supra), this Court is not interfering with the same and thus negated the issue raised by learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the contributory negligence. 19. So far quantum of compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal on the basis of income Rs.6,000/-per month of the deceased is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chameli Devi (Supra), wherein the Apex Court has held that income of such person ought to be considered @ Rs.5,000/- per month, if there is no proof of the document regarding the income. 20. But after reduction of the monthly income from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.5,000/-in view of the aforesaid judgment and interest from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum and addition of future prospect and difference of conventional head, there will be marginal change in the compensation, which requires no interference by this Court. 21. 20. But after reduction of the monthly income from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.5,000/-in view of the aforesaid judgment and interest from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum and addition of future prospect and difference of conventional head, there will be marginal change in the compensation, which requires no interference by this Court. 21. Under the aforesaid circumstances, in absence of any appeal preferred by the claimants, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same, though the interest has been awarded @ 9% per annum, which is contrary to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharmpal and Sons Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation [ 2008 (4) JCR 79 (SC)], but since marginal change will come if the future prospect is added and interest is deducted and that will give another line of litigation between the parties and as such, in my opinion, it would be proper if all these appeals are dismissed without any interference so that the claimants shall get benefits even after seven years of the occurrence, as the occurrence was of dated 05.06.2013. 22. Accordingly, without interfering with the impugned award, this Court dismissed all the appeals being devoid of merits. 23. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5415 of 2016 filed in M.A. No. 431/2016, I.A. No. 5414 of 2016, I.A. No. 945 of 2020 & I.A. No. 2359 of 2020 filed in M.A. No. 430/2016 are also hereby disposed of. 24. However, the statutory amount deposited in all these appeals shall be remitted before the learned Tribunal by Registrar General of this Court within period of four weeks from today. 25. The balance amount shall be paid by the appellant/Insurance Company in accordance with the award, within a period of 90 days before the claim Tribunal with interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 26. Learned Tribunal shall notice the claimants and after due verification indemnify the same to the claimants.