ORDER 1. These appeals have been filed by the claimants and the Insurance company respectively being aggrieved of award dated 30 th October, 2018 passed by 12th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in MACC No. 1413/2016. 2. The Insurance Company has taken three grounds namely Driver of the offending vehicle M.P.37-M.L.-4256 Omprakash was not having a valid driving license as is proved by non-applicant witness No. 3 employee of the R.T.O. Office Shajapur denying Ex. D-1. The second aspect is that claimant will be entitled to only 40% of future prospect but the Tribunal has wrongly calculated it as 50%. Thirdly, that the accident took place because of head on collision and, therefore, the factum of contributory negligence should have been accepted by the learned Tribunal. 3. Shri Nitin Gupta, learned counsel for the claimants in his turn submits that the Tribunal has taken income of the deceased at Rs. 6,575/- per month for an accident which took place on 14.3.2016 when deceased was aged about 24 years a bachelor and was deployed in a private job. 4. It is submitted that on the date of accident, even wages of the semiskilled labourer were to the tune of Rs. 7,432/- per month and accordingly, computation is to be made. 5. As far as plea of contributory negligence is concerned, the Insurance company has though examined NAW-2 so called eye-witness but could not prove the factum of contributory negligence by producing cogent evidence like spot map etc. to demonstrate as to on which side of the road, the deceased was travelling and where from the offending vehicle was coming. Whether the offending vehicle had hit the deceased on the wrong side or the deceased was travelling on the wrong side. 6. In the absence of any such material, no finding of contributory negligence can be recorded and that has been rightly discarded by the learned Tribunal. 7. The other two grounds namely that of violation of the terms of policy conditions for not having license and that of computation of future prospects at 50% is just and correct and made out and to that extent, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 8. As far as computation of compensation is concerned, the deceased was a Bachelor. The minimum wages for a semi skilled labourer were to the tune of Rs. 7,432/- per month. 8. As far as computation of compensation is concerned, the deceased was a Bachelor. The minimum wages for a semi skilled labourer were to the tune of Rs. 7,432/- per month. Since deceased was a Bachelor, 50 % amount is to be deducted towards the living expenses of the deceased. That will come out to Rs. 44,592/- per annum to be component of dependency on the family of the deceased. When 40% is to be added towards future prospects and multiplier of 18 is applied, total pecuniary compensation will come out to Rs. 11,23,718/-. When Rs. 30,000/- is added towards non-pecuniary compensation, then total compensation will come out to Rs. 11,53,718/- and there will be an addition of Rs. 80,000/- under the head of filial consortium as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2020) SCC Online 410 . Besides this, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,38,763/- towards the expenses of medical treatment. 9. Thus, claimants will be entitled to enhancement to the tune of Rs. Thus, total compensation payable will be Rs. 13,72,481/- against the award of Rs. 13,13,751/- awarded by the Tribunal. 10. Thus, there will be an enhancement of Rs. 58,730/- (Rupees Fifty eight thousand seven hundred and thirty only) to which claimants will be entitled to. 11. The direction of pay and recover shall remain intact. 12. In above terms, the appeals are disposed of. 13. Record of the Tribunal be sent back.