JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Since both the appeals lay challenge to impugned Award dated 6.3.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in MAC RBT case 22-S/2 of 2018/2017 titled Smt. Kanta Thakur and another vs. Raj Sharma and others, same were heard together with the consent of the parties and are being disposed of vide instant common judgment. 2. Vide FAO No. 237 of 2019, appellant-insurance company has laid challenge to impugned Award as detailed herein above, whereby learned Tribunal below, while allowing claim petition filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2/claimants (hereinafter, 'claimants') saddled the appellant-insurance company with the liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,42,000/- in favour of the claimants with interest at the rate 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization, alongwith litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/-. 3. By way of FAO No. 233 of 2021, claimants have approached this court for enhancement of compensation amount awarded by learned Tribunal below. 4. For the sake of brevity and clarity, facts of FAO No. 237 of 2019 are being discussed herein. 5. Claimants filed a claim petition under S. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter, 'Act') claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 50.00 Lakh alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation against appellant-insurance company and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 on account of death of their son, Joginder Thakur in an accident involving vehicle bearing registration No. PB-01A-7683. As per claimants, accident took place on 20.6.2017, while deceased was driving vehicle bearing registration No. HP-52A-0702. As per claimants, when vehicle being driven by deceased Joginder Thakur reached Cinema Chowk, Sundernagar, driver of vehicle bearing registration No. PB-01A-7683 lost control over the vehicle and hit the car of the deceased, as a consequence of which deceased suffered grievous injuries and ultimately expired. Factum with regard to accident was reported to Police Station Sundernagar, by the driver of offending vehicle and on the basis of same, FIR No. 116, dated 20.6.2017 was registered against deceased Joginder Thakur. Claimants averred in the claim petition that the deceased was a student doing diploma in motor mechanic from Polytechnic College, Sundernagar and had completed ITI course from HP Takniki Shiksha Board. Claimants averred in the claim petition that the deceased was a student doing diploma in motor mechanic from Polytechnic College, Sundernagar and had completed ITI course from HP Takniki Shiksha Board. As per claimants, deceased, who at the relevant time was 23 years of age, was earning Rs. 25,000 per month by doing part time job. 6. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4, filed a joint reply and refuted the claim of the claimants, by stating that they are not entitled to any compensation from them, rather the same is required to be paid by appellant-insurance company, because at the relevant time, vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurance company. Besides above, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 also claimed that the deceased was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of alleged accident. On merit, though respondents Nos. 3 and 4 did not dispute the factum of accident but claimed that same took place due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing No. HP-52A-0702, being driven by the deceased himself and not on account of negligent driving bus driver, respondent No. 4-Sanjay Kumar. 7. Appellant-insurance company, by way of separate reply, besides taking objections with regard to non-joinder of necessary parties, though admitted the accident involving vehicles bearing registration Nos. PB-01A-7683 and HP-52A-0702 but pleaded in its reply that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of deceased, Joginder Thakur, who hit the bus bearing registration No. PB-01A-7683, while driving his vehicle bearing registration No. HP-52A-0702, as a consequence of which, FIR No. 116 of 2017 was lodged against him. Appellant-insurance company also claimed that the deceased was driving his vehicle without any valid and effective driving licence to drive the same at the time of accident. 8. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal below framed following issues on 27.3.2018: "1. Whether deceased Joginder Singh died on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so to what extent and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPR. 4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged, if so to what effect? OPR-3 5. OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so to what extent and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPR. 4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged, if so to what effect? OPR-3 5. Whether the deceased was driving the vehicle bearing No. HP-2A-0702 without having valid driving licence as alleged, if so to what effect? OPR-3 6. Whether in alternative the liability to pay compensation is joint and severe as alleged? OPR-3 7. Whether the drivers of the vehicles were driving the vehicle under the influence of liquor as alleged, if so to what effect? OPR-3 8. Relief." 9. Subsequently vide impugned Award 6.3.2019, learned Tribunal below, allowed the claim petition and held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,42,000 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of petition till realization. Since liability to pay the compensation came to be saddled upon appellant-insurance company being insurer, it has approached this court in the instant petition praying to set aside impugned Award. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that primarily challenge to impugned Award has been laid on the following grounds i.e. (a) Since appellant-insurance company specifically proved on record that FIR was lodged against deceased for his having rashly and negligently driven the car bearing No. HP-52A-0702, learned Tribunal below ought not have saddled appellant-insurance company with liability to pay the entire amount of compensation rather such amount was to be shared by insurer of both the vehicles i.e. car as well as Volvo bus bearing registration No. PB-01A-7683. (b) Once the claimants failed to prove income of the deceased and it is an admitted fact that at the time of accident, deceased was a student, learned Tribunal below ought not have assessed his income to be Rs. 10,000 per month, rather, for determination of monthly income of the deceased, learned Tribunal below ought to have resorted to formula of minimum wages payable at the time of accident. 10,000 per month, rather, for determination of monthly income of the deceased, learned Tribunal below ought to have resorted to formula of minimum wages payable at the time of accident. (c) Learned Tribunal below ought not have awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on the amount of compensation, rather the same ought to have been awarded as per lending rate of interest payable at the time of filing of the petition. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company placed reliance upon judgment reported in Latest HLJ 2018 HP 750 12. True it is, that the FIR Ext. RW-1/A, dated 20.6.2017, was lodged at the behest of respondent No. 4 Sanjay Kumar, who at the time of alleged accident was driving the offending vehicle, but mere registration of FIR at the behest of driver of offending vehicle is not sufficient to conclude that at the time of alleged accident, deceased was driving car bearing registration No. HP-52A-0702 in rash and negligent manner, rather such fact was required to be proved by appellant-insurance company by leading cogent and convincing evidence. 13. Interestingly, in the case at hand, respondent No. 4 Sanjay Kumar, driver of offending vehicle bearing registration No. PB-01A-7683, stepped into witness box as RW-3 and deposed by way of affidavit, Ext. RW-3/A that on 20.6.2017 he was driving the bus from Manali to Chandigarh. He stated that at about 12.30 PM (midnight), when he reached Purana Bus Stand, Sundernagar, car bearing registration No. HP-52A-0702 came in high speed and driver of the car left his side and dashed against his bus. This witness further stated that the accident took place due to sheer negligence of deceased Joginder Thakur. This witness further deposed that the FIR dated 20.6.2017, was lodged against driver of vehicle bearing registration No. HP-52A-0702. In his cross-examination this witness denied that the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving and also denied that to save himself he got the FIR lodged against the deceased and managed the things to show that driver of car was negligent. This witness further stated that around 35 persons were occupying the bus at the time of the accident and none of them received injuries. 14. This witness further stated that around 35 persons were occupying the bus at the time of the accident and none of them received injuries. 14. Appellant-insurance company with a view to prove negligent driving of the deceased examined RW-4/HC Sanjeev Kumar, who deposed that the FIR No. 116 was registered on 20.6.2017 and he had investigated the case. He deposed that during investigation, it was found that the driver of the car was negligent and accident took place due to his negligence.. This witness stated that a cancellation report was filed in the FIR and same was accepted by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar. This witness in his cross-examination by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 stated that as per site plan, Ext. RW-4/B, driver of car left his side and hit bus. He stated that during investigation, it was found that the driver of the car was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. In cross-examination by learned counsel for the claimants, he stated that in the site plan, Ext. RW-4/B, the car was shown on its own side. He further deposed that the accident did not take place in his presence and medical examination of driver was not got done. This witness also admitted that the statements of the occupants of the bus were not recorded as they had refused to do so. 15. Careful perusal of aforesaid statements made by RW-3 and RW-4 namely Sanjay Kumar and HC Sanjeev Kumar, clearly suggests that after alleged accident, RW-3 Sanjay Kumar had got registered FIR against the deceased alleging therein that the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving. Police after completion of investigation filed cancellation report. Though RW-4 Sanjeev Kumar deposed that during investigation, it was found that driver of car was negligent and the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the deceased, but in his cross-examination by learned counsel for the claimants, he admitted that in site plan, Ext. RW-4/B car was shown on its own side. If it is so, it is not understood that on what basis this witness deposed that during investigation it was found that deceased was rash in driving. Most importantly, in the case at hand, entire claim of the appellant-insurance company as well as respondents Nos. RW-4/B car was shown on its own side. If it is so, it is not understood that on what basis this witness deposed that during investigation it was found that deceased was rash in driving. Most importantly, in the case at hand, entire claim of the appellant-insurance company as well as respondents Nos. 3 and 4 with regard to rash and negligent driving by deceased is based upon the solitary statement of RW-3 Sanjay Kumar, driver of the offending vehicle. 16. Once, it has specifically come in the statement of RW-4 HC Sanjeev Kumar and RW-3 Sanjay Kumar that at the time of accident, 35 persons were traveling in the offending vehicle/Volvo bus, it is not understood that what prevented the police from examining aforesaid occupants of the bus. Since RW-3 Sanjay Kumar is an interested party in the case and there are allegations of rash and negligent driving against him, his statement with regard to rash and negligent driving, if any, by deceased, cannot be treated as a gospel truth, especially when one of the witnesses namely PW-2 Brij Mohan, who was traveling in the car, deposed that at the relevant time, he was traveling with deceased in the car and was sitting on front seat of car. He deposed that near Bhojpur Bazaar, when deceased tried to negotiate a curve, offending vehicle, came from Mandi side, which was overtaking a light vehicle, going ahead of him and while doing so, bus came to their side and hit the car. This witness has categorically stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No. 4. Cross-examination conducted upon this witness, nowhere suggests that the opposite party was able to shatter his testimony or was able to extract something contrary to what he stated in his examination-in-chief. 17. Statement of PW-1 Sohan Lal reveals that he had given in writing to police that FIR RW-1/a, was wrongly recorded against his son, which fact has not been disputed by the respondents but there is no explanation qua the enquiry, if any conducted by the police after receipt of aforesaid report made by PW-1 in writing. 18. 17. Statement of PW-1 Sohan Lal reveals that he had given in writing to police that FIR RW-1/a, was wrongly recorded against his son, which fact has not been disputed by the respondents but there is no explanation qua the enquiry, if any conducted by the police after receipt of aforesaid report made by PW-1 in writing. 18. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently argued that once FIR Exhibit RW-4/B has been relied by claimants and in the claim petition they have taken some other stand by claiming that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 4 Sanjay Kumar, driver of offending vehicle, they could not have been awarded any compensation on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 4 as claimed by them in the claim petition. In support of the aforesaid plea, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance National Insurance Company Limited vs. Rattni, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though FIR is not a substantial piece of evidence, but tribunal while dealing with the claim set up by claimants, is bound to look into the contents of the FIR. 19. There cannot be any quarrel with the aforesaid proposition of law but in the case at hand, FIR, Exhibit RW-1/A has not been relied upon by the claimants, rather same has been tendered in evidence by appellant-insurance company and owner of the offending vehicle/Volvo Bus. Though perusal of FIR Exhibit RW-1/A suggests that the claimants had alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of deceased but as has been taken note herein above, cancellation report was filed and no investigation was carried out. Moreover, there is no document suggestive of the fact that the complainant, Sanjay Kumar, respondent No. 4, ever filed objections against the cancellation report. 20. Apart from driver of offending vehicle, no other witness came to be adduced by either of respondents to prove the fact that at the time of alleged accident, vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by deceased whereas, PW-2 Brij Mohan categorically deposed that at the time of accident, offending vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 4 and accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. As per aforesaid witness, driver of offending vehicle hit the car of deceased, while overtaking another vehicle and as such, this court sees no illegality and infirmity in the finding of learned Tribunal below that at the time of accident, offending vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 4 and not by the deceased. 21. Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Amusha & Ors v. Regional Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., [Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 14360/2016, decided on 6.10.2021], has held that to establish contributory negligence, some act or omission, which materially contributed to the accident or the damage, should be attributed to the person against whom it is alleged. Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the judgment (supra) as under: "13. Therefore, the entire reasoning of the High Court on Issue No. 1 is riddled with inherent contradictions. To establish contributory negligence, some act or omission, which materially contributed to the accident or the damage, should be attributed to the person against whom it is alleged. In Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri vs. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak and Others, (2002) 6 SCC 455 this Court quoted a decision of the High Court of Australia in Astley v. Austrust Ltd., (1999) 73 ALJR 403, to hold that "...where, by his negligence, one party places another in a situation of danger, which compels that other to act quickly in order to extricate himself, it does not amount to contributory negligence, if that other acts in a way which, with the benefit of hindsight is shown not to have been the best way out of the difficulty". In fact, the statement of law in Swadling v. Cooper 1931 AC 1, that "...the mere failure to avoid the collision by taking some extraordinary precaution, does not in itself constitute negligence...", was also quoted with approval by this Court. Therefore, we are compelled to reverse the finding of the Tribunal and the High Court on the question of contributory negligence." 22. Therefore, we are compelled to reverse the finding of the Tribunal and the High Court on the question of contributory negligence." 22. In the case at hand, there is no evidence available on record, save and except the statement of respondent No. 5 that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased, rather, PW-2, Brij Mohan, (occupant of the car of the deceased) has categorically stated that the driver of the offending vehicle (Volvo Bus) hit the car of the deceased, resulting in the accident in question. 23. Though in the case at hand, claimants claimed that their son (deceased) was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month by doing part time job, but since no evidence ever came to be led on record on their behalf with regard to aforesaid claim, learned Tribunal below, while applying guess work, proceeded to consider monthly income of deceased to be Rs. 10,000/-. 24. It has been repeatedly held by Hon'ble Apex Court and this court that in cases, where no specific evidence is available on record with regard to monthly income of the injured/deceased, courts having regard to the nature of the job of injured/deceased, should assess income as per minimum wages payable at that time in terms of the Minimum Wages Act. This court in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Ishwar Singh reported in Latest HLJ 2018 HP 750 has held that in the absence of specific evidence, if any, led on record by the claimant(s) with regard to income, tribunal should assess the income on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident in the Government sector. 25. In the case at hand, accident, occurred in the year 2017, when the minimum wages of unskilled labourer were Rs. 333/-, per day, as has been fairly admitted by learned counsel for the parties and as such, no illegality and infirmity can be said to have been committed by learned Tribunal below while assessing monthly income of deceased to be Rs. 10,000/-. Apart from above, Hon'ble Apex Court in V. Mekala vs M. Malathi & Anr, (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4880 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 16561 of 2013) decided on 25.4.2014) took income of student at Rs. 10,000/- per month. 26. 10,000/-. Apart from above, Hon'ble Apex Court in V. Mekala vs M. Malathi & Anr, (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4880 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 16561 of 2013) decided on 25.4.2014) took income of student at Rs. 10,000/- per month. 26. In view of above, no interference if any is called for qua the aforesaid aspect of the matter. 27. Learned Tribunal below while awarding sum of Rs. 15,42,000/- to the claimants has saddled appellant-insurance company with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, which otherwise appears to be on higher side. 28. Section 171 of the Act, though talks about interest to be awarded on compensation amount but it has been specifically provided in the aforesaid provision that Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim. 29. In the instant case, claim was filed in the year 2017 i.e. 17.7.2017, meaning thereby that learned Tribunal below could have awarded interest on the amount of compensation at the lending rate of interest, prevalent at that time. At the time of filing of the petition, lending rate of interest was 6.50 p.a. and as such, same needs to be modified accordingly. 30. In FAO No. 233 of 2021, claimants have made prayer for enhancement of amount of compensation on the ground that they have not been paid certain amounts under conventional head(s) in terms of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 . Besides above, it has been also claimed that learned Tribunal below has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/-, whereas it ought to have been Rs. 25,000/-. 31. As far as assessment of income of deceased is concerned, this court in earlier part of judgment has held that learned Tribunal below has rightly assessed income of deceased as Rs. 10,000/- as such, claim for enhancement of award on this ground deserves outright rejection. However, having taken note of the fact that no amount on account of loss of consortium has been awarded to the claimants, being parents of the deceased, this court deems it fit to award Rs. 10,000/- as such, claim for enhancement of award on this ground deserves outright rejection. However, having taken note of the fact that no amount on account of loss of consortium has been awarded to the claimants, being parents of the deceased, this court deems it fit to award Rs. 40,000/- each to the claimants, in light of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018 decided on 18.9.2018. 32. Consequently in view of above, instant appeal having been filed by the appellant-insurance company deserves to be allowed and rate of interest awarded on the amount of compensation deserves to be modified to 6.5% per annum. 33. In view of above, impugned award is modified to the extent that in addition to already awarded amount of Rs. 15,42,000/-, the claimants are held entitled to Rs. 40,000/- each on account of parental consortium, thus the total amount of compensation would be Rs. 15,42,000+80,000/- = 16,12,000/- and the claimants shall be entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 6.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till realisation. Apportionment of the compensation amount inter se the claimants shall be the same as held by learned Tribunal below. 34. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of. All pending miscellaneous applications are also disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.