JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Aditya Singh Parihar, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Shri Rakesh Kumar Porwal, learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle, Shri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the driver and Shri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the claimants. I. INTRODUCTION 2. The three appeals arise out of the same accident and an award made by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Fatehpur, in M.A.C.P. No. 256 of 2014 (Sunil Kumar Dwivedi and others Vs Rajesh Kumar and others) dated 25.04.2016 granting compensation to the claimants for the death of the deceased in the motor accident by partly allowing their claim. The appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company, claimants and owner of the vehicle respectively and are being decided by a common judgement. II. Case of the claimants and respondents before the learned tribunal: 3. Briefly the case of the claimants before the learned tribunal was that the deceased died of injuries sustained in an accident which occurred on 23.04.2014 and was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck No. UP 78 CN 7781. The deceased was travelling in a WagonR car being driven by her husband on the Yamuna Expressway when the accident occurred. The claimants were dependant on the deceased. The insurance company resisted the claim by filing a written statement. Both parties adduced evidence in the trial. III. Compensation awarded by the learned tribunal: 4. The learned tribunal in the impugned judgement dated 25.04.2016 awarded compensation as under: Sr. No. Heads Amount Awarded by the tribunal 1. Monthly Income (A) 31,740/- 2. Annual Income (B) (Ax12=B) 3,80,880/- 3. Future Prospects (C) 50% of 3,80,880/-=1,90,440/- 4. Annual Income + Future Prospects (B+C=D) 3,80,880+1,90,440/-=5,71,320/- 5. Deduction towards personal expenses (E) (1/3 of D) 1/3 of 5,71,320/- =1,90,440/- 6. Annual Loss of Dependency (F) (D-E =F) 5,71,320-1,90,440/-= 3,80,880/- 7. Multiplier (G) 16 8. Total loss of dependency (F x G) 3,80,880 x 16 = 60,94,080/- 9. Loss of love & Affection 5000/- 10. Loss of Estate 11. Funeral 5000/- 12. Deduction towards Contributory negligence 30% 13. Total compensation 61,04,080 – 30% = 42,72,856/- 14. Interest 7% IV. Issues for Consideration: 5. Multiplier (G) 16 8. Total loss of dependency (F x G) 3,80,880 x 16 = 60,94,080/- 9. Loss of love & Affection 5000/- 10. Loss of Estate 11. Funeral 5000/- 12. Deduction towards Contributory negligence 30% 13. Total compensation 61,04,080 – 30% = 42,72,856/- 14. Interest 7% IV. Issues for Consideration: 5. After advancing their arguments, learned counsels for the respective parties agree that the following questions fall for consideration in these appeals:- A. Whether the driver of the offending truck was in possession of a valid driving license at the time of the accident? Whether the truck owner was liable to pay compensation ? B. Whether there was any contributory negligence on part of the driver of the Wagon-R? C. Whether all the claimants were dependants of the deceased? D. Whether while determining the compensation the learned tribunal had lawfully computed the amounts under various heads like multiplier, consortium amount, deduction towards personal expenses and interest? E. What is the compensation to which the claimants are lawfully entitled? IV A. Issue of validity of license of the truck driver and liability of the truck owner: 6. The learned tribunal in the impugned award found for the insurance company and against the owner on the issue of driving license. The learned tribunal references the recital in the transport authority report (document 49-Ga-1) that the licence was in the name of one Om Prakash S/o Ram Prakash. On this footing the learned tribunal held that the driving license of the driver Santosh Kumar S/o Shivram presented by the owner as evidence was fake. The learned tribunal added these grounds to support the conclusion. The driver had used the said license in the bail proceeding, and for release of the offending vehicle. 7. The driver Santosh Kumar had specifically asserted in the written statement that his driving license bearing number 133895/ SRA/8 was issued by the licensing authority at Sant Ravidas Nagar. The license was valid from 25.10.2012 to 24.10.2015 for driving heavy transport vehicles and was effective on the date of the accident. The aforesaid driving license of the driver was also produced by him during the trial at the instance of the insurance company and upon specific order of the learned tribunal dated 10.02.2016. The driver Santosh Kumar had affirmed and proved the said license produced by him before the learned tribunal. 8. The aforesaid driving license of the driver was also produced by him during the trial at the instance of the insurance company and upon specific order of the learned tribunal dated 10.02.2016. The driver Santosh Kumar had affirmed and proved the said license produced by him before the learned tribunal. 8. The insurance company never confronted the driver in the witness box regarding the validity of the aforesaid license, nor was any challenge otherwise laid to its veracity. The said driving license was unrebutted throughout the trial proceedings. 9. The said driving license marked as Paper no. 78-ga was also noticed in the impugned award. However the learned tribunal neglected to return a finding on its validity or otherwise. This failure reflects of non application of mind by the learned tribunal to relevant facts and evidences in the record. 10. It is noteworthy that the stand of the driver that he had never used the license produced by the owner for enlargement on bail or for release of the vehicle remained unimpeached. 11. The insurance company failed to discharge its burden of proving the invalidity of the said driving license. 12. The evidence in the record establishes that the offending driver had a valid driving license on the date of the accident. The issue of the driving license is decided in favour of the owner and against insurance company. 13. The finding in the impugned award that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license is unsustainable in law and is set aside. 14. The truck was insured. There was no breach of the insurance policy. The truck owner is absolved of all liability to pay the compensation. IV B. Issue of contributory negligence: 15. The learned tribunal has found the Wagon-R driver responsible for contributory negligence, and assessed his liability for the same at 30%. 16. The eye witness PW-1 Sunil Kumar testified that on the fateful day he was driving the WagonR in his lane on the Yamuna Expressway. There was no other vehicle ahead of him in that lane. The offending truck was in another lane. The truck driver rashly changed lanes and suddenly halted in front of his car causing the collision. The F.I.R. was lodged with promptitude. Credit of this witness was not shaken under cross examination. His version is liable to be accepted as true. 17. The offending truck was in another lane. The truck driver rashly changed lanes and suddenly halted in front of his car causing the collision. The F.I.R. was lodged with promptitude. Credit of this witness was not shaken under cross examination. His version is liable to be accepted as true. 17. The second eye witness to the accident Santosh Kumar the driver of the offending vehicle denied any negligence. He deposed that the truck was standing at one side on the road when the Wagon-R drove into it negligently. Under cross examination he could not account for his lapses and his testimony was substantially impeached. The witness did not lodge an FIR. He fled after the accident. His denial of negligence is an afterthought. The credit of the witness was shaken and his testimony is unworthy of belief. 18. The deceased was travelling in the Wagon R. The Wagon-R vehicle was being driven in its lane at 80 km per hour on the Yamuna Expressway in the morning hours of the fateful day. Good visibility can be inferred since there is no contrary evidence. There was no vehicle ahead of the Wagon R in the said lane. 19. At this stage it would be apposite to discuss the judgment relied upon by Sri Aditya Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the insurance company in Nishan Singh and others Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and others, 2018 (6) SCC 765 . Nishan Singh (supra) is distinguishable on facts and not applicable to this case. Firstly, in Nishan Singh (supra) the vehicles were tailing each other. In this case there was no traffic ahead in the lane in which the WagonR was moving. Secondly the width of the road in Nishan Singh (supra) was about 14 ft. The Yamuna Expressway is much broader. 20. Safe driving norms define the duty to care of a driver. Two of the safety precautions which must be observed by a driver are: a minimum distance between two moving vehicles should be maintained and maximum speed limit has to be strictly adhered to. The permissible speed limits and terms of other safety precautions and compliance thereof will be determined upon enquiry in the facts and circumstances of a case. The germane considerations in such enquiry include the breadth and condition of the road, volume of traffic, visibility conditions. 21. The permissible speed limits and terms of other safety precautions and compliance thereof will be determined upon enquiry in the facts and circumstances of a case. The germane considerations in such enquiry include the breadth and condition of the road, volume of traffic, visibility conditions. 21. The Yamuna Expressway is a well constructed highway of large breadth with several lanes. Multiple lane highways like Yamuna Expressway have been created for speedier connectivity with road conditions which facilitate faster movement of vehicles. Lane driving norms ease traffic flow and are designed to prevent accidents. The permissible speed limits on these highways are higher than other roads. 22. In these facts and circumstances, particularly absence of traffic in the lane, and good road and visibility conditions, speed of 80 km. per hour on the Yamuna Expressway was not excessive. The offending truck was moving in another lane. The truck driver suddenly swerved into the lane of the WagonR at a very fast speed and abruptly halted. He did not alert the driver of the WagonR before changing lanes. The offending driver failed to observe traffic rules and take reasonable care. The driver of the Wagon-R had no time and opportunity to stop his car or take safety measures to prevent the accident. 23. From facts and evidences in the record and appraised in the preceding discussion, these facts are proved by the evidential standard of preponderance of probability. The negligence was entirely on part of the offending truck driver and he was fully responsible for the accident. Negligence on part of the WagonR driver is not proved. The learned tribunal erred in facts and law by imposing contributory negligence liability of 30% on the driver of the WagonR. The finding is reversed. The insurance company is liable to pay the full compensation. IV C. Issue of dependancy of the claimants on the deceased: 24. The claimants have specifically stated their dependancy on the deceased with all material facts in their pleadings. These facts have not been specifically refuted by the insurance company. The bald and general denial by the insurance company is not worthy of acceptance. Infact, the insurance company did not examine the P.W. 1 on the issue of dependancy in the witness box. 25. The claimants were dependant on the deceased and are entitled to compensation on account of her death. The bald and general denial by the insurance company is not worthy of acceptance. Infact, the insurance company did not examine the P.W. 1 on the issue of dependancy in the witness box. 25. The claimants were dependant on the deceased and are entitled to compensation on account of her death. IV D. Issue of computation of the compensation under various heads: a. Salary of the deceased 26. The deceased was an Assistant Teacher in a government primary school. She was drawing a salary of Rs. 34,500/-per month. House Rent Allowance as per her service entitlement was a component of her salary. The tribunal has unlawfully deducted the House Rent Allowance amount from the salary of the deceased. House Rent Allowance has to be treated as part of salary of the deceased while computing the compensation. b. Deduction towards personal expenses: 27. The deceased had four dependants. The deduction of 1/3rd made towards personal expenses made by the learned tribunal was excessive. The amount which is liable to be deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is 1/4th. 28. The discussion has the advantage of authorities in point. While deciding the issue of deduction of personal expenses, the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs Delhi Transport Company and another, 2009 (6) SCC 121 held: “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra [ (1996) 4 SCC 362 ], the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.” 29. Sarla Verma (supra) was later followed with approval in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 (See Pr. 37). C. Issue of multiplier 30. There is merit in the submission of Sri Aditya Singh Parihar learned counsel that an incorrect multiplier of 16 has been used by the learned tribunal. The learned counsels for other parties fairly concede point. The age of the victim was 38 years. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 (See Pr. 37). C. Issue of multiplier 30. There is merit in the submission of Sri Aditya Singh Parihar learned counsel that an incorrect multiplier of 16 has been used by the learned tribunal. The learned counsels for other parties fairly concede point. The age of the victim was 38 years. The applicable multiplier applicable as per the holdings in Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra) is 15. 31. The compensation has to be recalculated by applying multiplier of 15. d. Calculation of Conventional Heads: 32. The amount determined under conventional heads in the impugned award is at variance with Pranay Sethi (supra). The claimants are entitled to the sum fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra) which holds as under: “54. …...The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/-funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/-And Rs. 15,000/- respectively.” e. Interest 33. Interest of 7% and the manner of payment decided by the learned tribunal is just and lawful and does not call for interference. IV E. Determination of Compensation to which claimants-respondents are entitled: 34. In wake of the preceding discussion, the amount of compensation to which the claimants are entitled, is tabulated hereunder: i. Date of Accident 22/23.04.2014 ii. Name of Deceased Smt. Pratibha Dwivedi iii. Age of the deceased 38 years iv. Occupation of the Deceased Assistant Teacher v. Income of the deceased 34,500.00 vi. In wake of the preceding discussion, the amount of compensation to which the claimants are entitled, is tabulated hereunder: i. Date of Accident 22/23.04.2014 ii. Name of Deceased Smt. Pratibha Dwivedi iii. Age of the deceased 38 years iv. Occupation of the Deceased Assistant Teacher v. Income of the deceased 34,500.00 vi. Name, Age and Relationship of Claimants with the deceased: Sr. No. Name Age Relation 1. Sunil Kumar Dwivedi 43 Husband 2. Km. Janhvi Dwivedi 14 Daughter 3. Vijyant Dwivedi 10 Son 4. Smt. Munni Devi 60 Mother-in-law 5. Ramsumer Dwivedi 65 Father-in-law vii. Computation of Compensation Sr. No. Heads Amount (in Rupees) 1. Monthly Income (A) 34,500/- 2. Annual Income (B) (A x 12 = B) 4,14000/- 3. Future Prospects (C) 50% of 4,14000/-= 2,07,000/- 4. Annual Income + Future Prospects (B+C=D) 4,14000.00 + 2,07,000/-= 6, 21,000 5. Deduction towards personal expenses (E) (¼ of D) ¼ of 6,21,000/-= 1,55,250/- 6. Annual Loss of Dependency (F) (D/-E = F) 6,21,000-1,55,250/-= 4,65,750/- 7. Multiplier (G) 15 8. Total loss of dependancy (F x G) 4,65,750 x 15 = 69,86,250/- 9. Conventional Heads: (a) Loss of consortium (b) Loss of Estate (c) Funeral Expenses 70,000/- 10. Total compensation 70,56,250/- 11. Interest 7% VI. Conclusions & Directions: 35. The amount of compensation to which the deceased has been found entitled shall be deposited by the Insurance Company within three months before the learned tribunal. Thereafter the learned tribunal shall release the amount to the claimants without delay. The amount already disbursed to the claimants (if any) shall be duly adjusted. 36. The amount deposited by appellant Rajesh, in FAFO No. 2507 of 2016, who is the owner of the vehicle before this court shall be refunded to him. The security deposited by the said appellant in the wake of the order passed by this Court shall be discharged. 37. These appeals are finally decided as above.