JUDGMENT : 1. Since the instant three appeals arise out of the same impunged judgment dated 15.9.2021 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (herein-afterwards referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No. 55/2021 titled as (Smt. Charu Nahta & Ors. vs. Ramniwas & Ors.), they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under : 3. In a road accident occurred on 22.4.2016 between Maruti Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration No. RJ 19 TA 6558 and Rajasthan Roadways Bus bearing registration No. RJ 21 PA 0593. Rajesh Nahta, who was travelling in the car died on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident. Claimants who are wife, son, daughter and mother of the deceased filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. 4. After inquiry, the learned Tribunal while allowing the claim petition awarded Rs.1,20,18,945/- as compensation holding that both drivers are equally responsible for the accident and non-claimants nos. 1 to 6 i.e. drivers, owner and Insurance Company of car were made liable to pay the amount of compensation. 5. Learned Tribunal assessed the loss of income on the basis of income of deceased as mentioned in Certificate (Exhibit-24) and while calculating the monthly salary, house rent allowance and travel allowance were not taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal considering the age of the deceased at the time of accident to be 50 years and 2 months, applied the multiplier of 11 prescribed for the age group of 50-55. The deceased was in permanent job, therefore, future prospects was added to the income @ 15%, prescribed for persons of the age more than 50 years. Consortium @ Rs. 40,000/-was awarded to each claimants. However, learned Tribunal did not take into account the adult son of the deceased while determining the percentage for deducting amount towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Learned Tribunal awarded interest @ 9% on the amount of compensation from the filing of claim petition till realisation subject to the provisions of Income Tax Act. 6. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (herein-afterwards referred to as ‘RSRTC’) filed S.B. Civil Misc. Learned Tribunal awarded interest @ 9% on the amount of compensation from the filing of claim petition till realisation subject to the provisions of Income Tax Act. 6. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (herein-afterwards referred to as ‘RSRTC’) filed S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 26/2022 on the grounds: That the learned Tribunal erred in recording the finding that driver of the RSRTC Bus was also rash and negligent in driving the Bus; Even if it is presumed that driver of the RSRTC Bus was negligent to some extent then also composite/contributory negligence of the Car driver was fastened much more than the negligence on the part of the Bus driver; and That the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive. 7. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (herein-afterwards referred to as ‘Insurance Company’), the insurer of the Car also filed appeal being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 8/2022 challenging the impugned judgment and award on the grounds: That the accident was not the result of any negligence on the part of the Car driver, hence, the learned Tribunal was not right in fixing the liability on Car driver; that the claimants have concocted the facts and circumstances of the accident; that the deceased was not third party for the appellant; that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in awarding Rs.40,000/-to each claimants for loss of consortium is contrary to the settled principles of law; and that the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is also contrary to the settled principles of law and the same is required to be modified. 8. On the other hand, the claimants prayed to enhance the compensation amount on the grounds being dealt with at appropriate stage. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Regarding rash and negligent driving by driver of the Roadways Bus Ramniwas has been examined as D.W.1, whereas, car driver has not been produced in evidence. One eyewitness Laxman Ram (A.W.2) has been produced by claimants. Site plan (Exhibit-5) and other police documents have also been exhibited during the statement of the claimants. As per site plan, car was coming from Jodhpur, whereas, bus was coming from the opposite side i.e. Nagaur. One eyewitness Laxman Ram (A.W.2) has been produced by claimants. Site plan (Exhibit-5) and other police documents have also been exhibited during the statement of the claimants. As per site plan, car was coming from Jodhpur, whereas, bus was coming from the opposite side i.e. Nagaur. From perusal of the site memo, it reveals that at the time of accident, road construction work was going on and the accident took place on the diverted way. As per site memo, width of the diverted way was about 24 feet and the place of accident was marked as ‘X’ in the site memo (Exhibit-5). 11. Ramniwas (D.W.1) bus driver in his statement stated that on 22.4.2016 at about 1:30 – 2:00 PM, Maruti Car after overtaking the truck, came suddenly in front of the bus from opposite side, then he off road the bus and left side of the car was collided with the bus. It is to be noted that bus driver also reported the matter to the police by submitting report (Exhibit-4). As per the said report, car came in wrong side and collided with the bus from left side. 12. As per the statement of eyewitness Laxman Ram bus was coming from Nagaur side, which was being driven in high speed with negligence. At the same time, one Maruti Swift Car came from Jodhpur side, which was also being driven in high speed with negligence. Both the vehicles collided on middle of the road. Accident was the result of negligence on the part of both the drivers. In cross-examination, he stated that no truck was running ahead of the car. 13. After analyzing the above evidence and police documents, the statement of the bus driver to the effect that a truck was running ahead of the car and after overtaking the truck, car suddenly came in front of the bus, cannot be accepted; this fact has not been mentioned in the report filed by the bus driver. In the police documents also, there is no mention regarding overtaking of the truck. The eyewitness Laxman Ram (A.W.2) in his cross-examination also denied that any truck was going ahead of the car. 14. In view of above factual position, this Court is of the opinion that the accident was the result of negligence on the part of both the drivers. The eyewitness Laxman Ram (A.W.2) in his cross-examination also denied that any truck was going ahead of the car. 14. In view of above factual position, this Court is of the opinion that the accident was the result of negligence on the part of both the drivers. It is true that the place of accident was in the middle of the road and bus driver was not in the wrong side. The contents of site memo suggests that the car driver tried to avoid the accident by going in the wrong side resulting in left side of the car was collided with the front left side of the bus. Seizure memo of vehicle and mechanical report (Exhibit-12) of the car also corroborates this fact, according to which front and left side of the car was found damaged and left side of the bus was also found damaged. 15. Above evidence speaks about grave negligence on the part of the car driver. The circumstances are suggestive of the fact that on account of high speed, car driver could not control his vehicle, so he turned his car towards extreme wrong side on account of which left portion of the car was collided and damaged. The deceased was sitting in the back seat of the car. Car driver did not sustain any injury; since right side of the car was escaped from colliding with the bus. Bus was not in the wrong side. It was in the middle of the road. 16. Bus driver was also required to drive bus with more caution and in controlled speed. Bus driver was also responsible to some extent for the accident. Though, this accident is result of contributory negligence on part of both the drivers. However, equal responsibility to both the drivers cannot be assigned. 17. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case minutely under which accident took place, the contributory negligence of bus driver is fastened to the extent of 25% only. The main negligence was on the part of the car driver. Hence, the liability of the car driver is increased from 50% to 75%. 18. Regarding quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the learned Tribunal erred in not including major son of the deceased for the purpose of deducting the money towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Hence, the liability of the car driver is increased from 50% to 75%. 18. Regarding quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the learned Tribunal erred in not including major son of the deceased for the purpose of deducting the money towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Birender & Ors : (2020) 11 SCC 356 . 19. Deceased had left behind his wife, son, daughter and mother. As per principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & ors. reported in 2017/ACJ/2700, 1/4 income should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased in case of number of dependents are between 4 to 6. There is no reason for not including the non-earning son of deceased in the category of dependents. This Court is in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants. At the time of accident, though the son of deceased was major, however, he was a student and was dependent on the earnings of his father. The view expressed by the learned Tribunal that since the son was major he cannot be considered as dependent of the deceased, is not in accordance with law. 20. In the result, 1/3 amount deducted from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses is liable to be modified from 1/3 to 1/4. 21. Regarding multiplier, learned counsel for the claimants while relying on the judgment of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr : (2009) 6 SCC 121 , contends that the deceased should be treated in the age group of 46 to 50 and multiplier of 13 should have been adopted instead of 11. In this regard, learned counsel referred the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.H. Uma Maheshwari & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. : (2020) 6 SCC 400 . 22. After perusing the above judgment, this Court is of the opinion that in that case High Court adopted different yardsticks regarding age group of the deceased for the purpose of applying multiplier and percentage in granting future prospects. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. : (2020) 6 SCC 400 . 22. After perusing the above judgment, this Court is of the opinion that in that case High Court adopted different yardsticks regarding age group of the deceased for the purpose of applying multiplier and percentage in granting future prospects. So Hon’ble Supreme Court did not approve the approach of the High Court and allowed the multiplier of 13. 23. After perusal of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), it is evident that the main issue was regarding applying relevant multiplier for the correspondent age group and not the age group itself. Hon’ble Apex Court did not discard the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act so far as it relates to age group, which reads as follows: Age of Victim Multiplier Up to 15 yrs 15 Above 15 yrs but not exceeding 20 years 16 Above 20 yrs but not exceeding 25 years 17 Above 25 yrs but not exceeding 30 years 18 Above 30 yrs but not exceeding 35 years 17 Above 35 yrs but not exceeding 40 years 16 Above 40 yrs but not exceeding 45 years 15 Above 45 yrs but not exceeding 50 years 13 Above 50 yrs but not exceeding 55 years 11 Above 55 yrs but not exceeding 60 years 8 Above 60 yrs but not exceeding 65 years 5 Above 65 yrs 5 24. This Court is of the opinion that for the purpose of determining the age group classification as made in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act has not been disturbed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the present case, since at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 50 years and 2 months, the multiplier of 11 applicable for the age group of persons above 50 years but not exceeding 55 years shall apply. Hence, learned Tribunal did not commit any error in applying the multiplier of 11. Accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants regarding multiplier is rejected. 25. Hence, learned Tribunal did not commit any error in applying the multiplier of 11. Accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants regarding multiplier is rejected. 25. So far as addition of percentage to income for the purpose of loss of income in the head of future prospectus is concerned, as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 50% of actual salary to the income of deceased towards future prospectus, where the deceased had permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30% if the age of deceased was 40 to 50 years. In case deceased was between 50 to 60 years, then addition should be of 15%. 26. In view of the clear guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the Case of Pranay Sethi (supra) learned Tribunal did not commit any error in adding 15% to the income of the deceased towards future prospectus. Since the deceased was aged 50 years and 2 months at the time of accident, deceased cannot be treated in the age group of 40 to 50 years. 27. Learned counsel for the claimants further contends that the learned Tribunal erred in not including the house rent in the income of the deceased. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manasvi Jain vs. DTC Ltd. : (2014) 13 SCC 22 . 28. After perusal of the judgment in the case of Manasvi Jain (supra), this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal erred in not including the house rent in the income of the deceased for the purpose of determining income of the deceased. Hon’ble Apex Court also held that house rent is part of the income. Except Income Tax voluntary contribution by the deceased for the welfare of his family cannot be deducted from the monthly salary of the deceased to compute his net salary or take home salary. 29. In the present case, learned Tribunal erred in not including the house rent allowance in the income of the deceased. However, it is made clear that travelling allowance is not part of the income. 29. In the present case, learned Tribunal erred in not including the house rent allowance in the income of the deceased. However, it is made clear that travelling allowance is not part of the income. It is also made clear that income tax at the rate applicable to the income for financial year 2015-16 as per the provisions of Income Tax should be deducted from salary for the purpose of assessing the loss of income. 30. There is no other ground for enhancement of the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 31. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contends that the interest awarded @ 9% per annum on the compensation is excessive. 32. This Court is in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. Looking to the present interest rate at which nationalized banks make transactions, the interest @ 9% awarded by the learned Tribunal is certainly excessive and not in accordance with law. In the considered opinion of this Court, interest @ 6% per annum is reasonable one. 33. After perusing the computation made by the learned Tribunal, it reveals that for the purpose of assessing annual income of the deceased, Tribunal relied only on the Last Pay Certificate, which is only for 22 days. In the Last Pay Certificate no separate details regarding DA and other allowances have been made. The approach of the learned Tribunal to assess the income of deceased on the basis Last Pay Certificate cannot be approved. Learned Tribunal was required to assess annual income of the deceased taking into consideration every component of the salary. 34. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it will be better to remand the case to the learned Tribunal for fresh assessment of the compensation in the light of the observations made by this Court. 35. In the result, while partly allowing the appeal (S.B. CMA No. 221/2022) filed by the claimants, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal with the direction to re-assess the amount of compensation in the light of observations made by this Court. 36. The appeal (S.B. CMA No.8/2022) filed by the Insurance Company and appeal (S.B. CMA No. 26/2022) filed by the RSRTC are partly allowed. The interest awarded by the Tribunal @ 9% per annum is reduced to 6% per annum. 37. 36. The appeal (S.B. CMA No.8/2022) filed by the Insurance Company and appeal (S.B. CMA No. 26/2022) filed by the RSRTC are partly allowed. The interest awarded by the Tribunal @ 9% per annum is reduced to 6% per annum. 37. While maintaining the joint and several liability to pay the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the extent of liability of RSRTC is limited to 25% only, whereas, the liability of the Insurance Company is increased from 50% to 75%. 38. After re-assessment, if the amount of compensation is enhanced then, the enhanced amount shall also carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim petition till realization of amount. 39. Re-assessment shall be made within one month from receiving the certified copy of this judgment by the Tribunal. After re-assessment, the Insurance Company and RSRTC will pay the amount after adjusting previous payment, if any, within a period of four weeks. 40. The learned Tribunal is also directed to send compliance report to this Court.