JUDGMENT : AJAY BHANOT, J. (I) INTRODUCTION: 1. These two appeals arise out of the same accident and an award made by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Allahabad on 31.05.2014, in M.A.C.P. No. 770 of 2011 (Smt. Nirmala Kanaujia @ Nirmala Devi and Others vs. U.P.S.R.T.C.). (II) Case of the claimants and respondents before the learned tribunal: 2. Briefly the case of the claimants before the learned tribunal was that the deceased died of injuries sustained in an accident which occurred on 04.06.2011, and was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the UPSRTC Bus No. UP-70-AT-6658. The deceased was driving a motorcycle on the G.T. Road, Hatwa Crossing, Kaushambi when the offending bus collided with the motorcyle. The deceased was 36 years of age the time of the accident. The claimants were dependant on the deceased. The UPSRTC resisted the claim by filing a written statement. Both parties adduced evidence in the trial. (III) Compensation awarded by the learned tribunal: 3. The learned tribunal in the impugned judgment dated 21.05.2014 awarded compensation which is depicted in the tabulated form hereunder: S. No. Heads Amount Awarded by the tribunal 1. Monthly Income (A) 24,990/- 2. Annual Income (B) (Ax12=B) 2,99,880/- 3. Future Prospects (C) Nil 4. Annual Income + Future Prospects (B+C=D) 2,99,880 + Nil = 2,99,880/- 5. Deduction towards personal expenses (E) (1/3 of D) 1/3 of 2,99,880/- = 99,960/- 6. Annual Loss of Dependancy (F) (D-E =F) 2,99,880 - 99,960/- = 1,99,920/- 7. Multiplier (G) 16 8. Total loss of dependancy (FxG) 1,99,920 x 16 = 31,98,720/- 9. Loss of love and Affection 5000/- 10. Loss of Estate 5,000/- 11. Funeral 5,000/- 12. Deduction towards Contributory negligence Nil 13. Total compensation 31,98,720 + 15,000 = 32,13,720/- 14. Interest 7% 4. FAFO No. 3263 of 2014 (U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Smt. Nirmala Kanaujia @ Nirmala Devi and Others) has been filed by UPSRTC challenging the award dated 31.5.2014 passed by the Tribunal. FAFO No. 2556 of 2014 (Smt. Nirmala Kanaujia alias Nirmala Devi and Others U.P.S.R.T.C.) has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. Arguments of learned counsels: 5. Various grounds have been taken in the appeal by the UPSRTC. However, Shri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant on behalf of appellant-UPSRTC (in FAFA No. 3263 of 2014) only presses two grounds against the impugned award. Arguments of learned counsels: 5. Various grounds have been taken in the appeal by the UPSRTC. However, Shri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant on behalf of appellant-UPSRTC (in FAFA No. 3263 of 2014) only presses two grounds against the impugned award. Firstly, it was a case of contributory negligence, and the learned Tribunal erred in law fixing the entire liability on the appellant. Secondly, incorrect multiplier has been applied in the impugned award. 6. Per contra, in the appeal for enhancement (FAFO No. 2556 of 2014), Mrs. Deepali Srivastava, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that this was not a case of contributory negligence. Calling attention to various fault lines in the impugned award, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that deduction towards personal expenses was excessive and unsustainable in law, future prospects were unlawfully denied and impermissible deductions were made by the learned Tribunal in the salary of the deceased. Lastly, the amounts granted under conventional heads were contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 . (IV) Issues for Consideration: 7. After advancing their arguments, learned counsels for the respective parties agree that only the following questions fall for consideration in these appeals: (A) Whether the accident resulted from contributory negligence on part of the deceased motorcycle driver? (B) Whether while determining the compensation the learned tribunal had lawfully computed the amounts under various heads salary, future prospects, multiplier, conventional heads, deduction towards personal expenses? (C) What is the compensation to which the claimants are lawfully entitled? (IV) (A) Issue of contributory negligence: 8. The claimants introduced two witnesses namely PW-1 Smt. Nirmala Devi (wife of the deceased) and PW-2 Pradeep Kumar the person who was driving the ill-fated motor cycle witness to establish the factum of the accident and the negligence of the driver of the offending UPSRTC bus. 9. PW-1 Nirmala Devi testified before the learned tribunal that she had witnessed the accident. On the fateful day, she was riding pillion on the motorcycle being driven by her deceased husband. As they reached Mallahapur (Hatwa Road) a UP Roadways bus which was over speeding and being driven negligently on the wrong side of the road collided with the motorcycle. The deceased sustained mortal injuries in the accident, and PW-1 also suffered injuries. On the fateful day, she was riding pillion on the motorcycle being driven by her deceased husband. As they reached Mallahapur (Hatwa Road) a UP Roadways bus which was over speeding and being driven negligently on the wrong side of the road collided with the motorcycle. The deceased sustained mortal injuries in the accident, and PW-1 also suffered injuries. The motorcycle driver (deceased husband) was driving on the right side at a slow speed. There was no traffic ahead of the motorcycle on the road. 10. PW-2 Pradeep Kumar also testified that he was an eye witness to the accident, who saw the deceased driving a motorcycle with his wife riding pillion. The UP Roadways bus was being driven on the wrong side at an uncontrollable speed. The driving of the offending bus resulted in a collision with the motorcycle. The deceased died of injuries and his wife was injured grievously in the accident. 11. The testimonies of the aforesaid PW-1 and PW-2 were not shaken under cross examination. The learned tribunal which had the benefit of observing the demeanour of the witnesses upheld the credit of the witnesses and believed their testimonies. 12. The driver of the UPSRTC bus in deposition before the learned Trial Court denied his negligence. According to his testimony, the accident occurred, when the motorcycle collided with the rear side of the bus. The credit of DW-1 Ram, (driver of the offending bus) who had testified before the learned tribunal, was impeached under cross examination. His testimony was disbelieved by the learned tribunal. 13. The learned tribunal found that the accident was caused by negligent driving of the offending bus on the wrong side of the road. 14. A head on collision does not ipso facto mean that it is a case of contributory negligence. Contributory negligence occurs and when both the parties drive negligently, flout traffic rules, or fail to observe norms of safe driving. Contributory negligence implies that both parties are culpable for the accident. In such cases, the courts have to assess the responsibility of each party in causing the accident, and apportion liability on the respective parties accordingly. 15. The facts which are established by pleadings and evidence in the record are these. The norms of safe driving as well as traffic rules were flouted only by the driver of the UPSRTC bus. In such cases, the courts have to assess the responsibility of each party in causing the accident, and apportion liability on the respective parties accordingly. 15. The facts which are established by pleadings and evidence in the record are these. The norms of safe driving as well as traffic rules were flouted only by the driver of the UPSRTC bus. The driving of the offending UPSRTC bus drove rashly on the wrong side of the road. There was no fault of the motorcycle driver in the mishap. The deceased motorcycle driver drove prudently on the right side while observing traffic rules and norms of safe driving. He had no time or opportunity to take measures to prevent the accident or save himself due to the over-speeding and negligent driving of the offending bus driver. The accident occurred entirely due to the fault of the driver of the offending UPSRTC vehicle and UPSRTC is solely liable to pay the compensation. 15.1. Appraisal of evidence by the learned trial court and its consideration of pleadings and material in the record is impeccable. This Court is not persuaded to take any other view. The findings of the learned tribunal on this issue are upheld. 15.2. The issue of contributory negligence is decided for the claimants & against the UPSRTC. (IV) (C) Issue of computation of the compensation under various heads: a. Salary of the deceased: 16. The deceased was a Junior Engineer in U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. The salary certificate issued by the department and duly proved before the learned tribunal records that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 29,205/-. The learned Tribunal made an impermissible deduction of Rs. 4,000/- in the salary of the deceased. The only deduction which was permissible in the salary was towards income tax as per the applicable rate. (b) Future Prospects: 17. The future prospects are liable to be calculated in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 [hereinafter referred to as the “U.P. Rules 1998”]. Rule 220A-3(iii) of the Rules is relevant and is reproduced hereunder: “(3) The future prospects of a deceased, shall be added in the actual salary or minimum wages of the deceased as under: “(i) Below 40 years of age: 50% of the salary.” 18. The UP Rules, 1998 came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. The UP Rules, 1998 came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Urmila Shukla and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 822. In Urmila Shukla (supra) upon consideration of various judgments including National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 held: “10. The discussion on the point in Pranay Sethi was from the standpoint of arriving at “just compensation” in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 11. If an indicia is made available in the form of a statutory instrument which affords a favourable treatment, the decision in Pranay Sethi cannot be taken to have limited the operation of such statutory provision specially when the validity of the Rules was not put under any challenge. The prescription of 15% in cases where the deceased was in the age bracket of 50-60 years as stated in Pranay Sethi cannot be taken as maxima. In the absence of any governing principle available in the statutory regime, it was only in the form of an indication. If a statutory instrument has devised a formula which affords better or greater benefit, such statutory instrument must be allowed to operate unless the statutory instrument is otherwise found to be invalid.” (Emphasis supplied) 19. The Rules of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 were not under consideration before the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) or Smt. Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Company and Another, 2009 (6) SCC 121 . Future prospects in Pranay Sethi (supra) were determined without noticing the U.P. Rules, 1998. This fact was adverted to in Urmila Shukla (supra): “8. It is submitted by Mr. Rao that the judgment in Pranay Sethi does not show that the attention of the Court was invited to the specific rules such as Rule 3(iii) which contemplates addition of 20% of the salary as against 15% which was stated as a measure in Pranay Sethi. In his submission, since the statutory instrument has been put in place which affords more advantageous treatment, the decision in Pranay Sethi ought not to be considered to limit the application of such statutory Rule.” 20. The U.P. Rules, 1998 are statutory in nature and their operation is not stymied by Pranay Sethi (supra). The U. P. Rules, 1998 have the force of law and shall apply with full force in appropriate cases. The U.P. Rules, 1998 are statutory in nature and their operation is not stymied by Pranay Sethi (supra). The U. P. Rules, 1998 have the force of law and shall apply with full force in appropriate cases. The U.P. Rules, 1998 are more beneficial for the claimants than the provisions made in Pranay Sethi (supra) for them. The holdings in Pranay Sethi (supra) can not dilute the advantages conferred by U.P. Rules, 1998 upon the eligible beneficiaries. 21. The argument that the U.P. Rules, 1998 encroach upon the judicial power of the courts, and are in the teeth of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and hence beyond the legislative competence of the State is not liable to be entertained by this Court. The vires of the UP Rules, 1998 is not in issue in this appeal. Moreover, the U.P. Rules, 1998 are a reliable guide in an enquiry made by the court for assessing the just compensation payable in the facts and circumstances of a case. 22. In this wake, this Court finds that the claimants/respondents are entitled to 50% enhancement in wages towards future prospects. (b) Deduction towards personal expenses: 23. The deceased had four dependants (parents, wife and two minor children). 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. 24. The discussion has the advantage of authorities in point. While deciding the issue of deduction of personal expenses, the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma 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.” 25. 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: 26. There is merit in the submission of Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the UPSRTC that an incorrect multiplier of 16 has been used by the learned tribunal. The learned counsels for the claimants-respondents fairly concedes the point. The age of the victim was 36 years. The applicable multiplier applicable as per the holdings in Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra) is 15. 27. The compensation has to be recalculated by applying multiplier of 15. (d) Calculation of Conventional Heads: 28. 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/- and Rs. 40,000/- funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- And Rs. 15,000/- respectively.” (e) Interest: 29. Interest of 7% and the manner of payment decided by the learned tribunal is just and lawful and does not call for interference. IV D. Determination of Compensation to which claimants-respondents are entitled. 30. 15,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- And Rs. 15,000/- respectively.” (e) Interest: 29. Interest of 7% and the manner of payment decided by the learned tribunal is just and lawful and does not call for interference. IV D. Determination of Compensation to which claimants-respondents are entitled. 30. In wake of the preceding discussion, the amount of compensation to which the claimants are entitled and is hereby awarded, is tabulated below: (i) Date of Accident 04.06.2011 (ii) Name of Deceased Naresh Kumar (iii) Age of the deceased 36 years (iv) Occupation of the Deceased Junior Engineer (v) Income of the deceased 29,205/- p.m. (vi) Name, Age and Relationship of Claimants with the deceased: S. No. Name Age Relation 1. Smt. Nirmala Kanaujia 35 Wife 2. Nikhil Kumar 11 Son 3. Km. Deeksha 9 Daughter 4. Smt. Suraj Kali 60 Mother 5. Munni Lal 65 Father (vii) Computation of Compensation: S. No. Heads Amount (in Rupees) 1. Monthly Income (A) 29,205/- 2. Annual Income (B) (Ax12=B) 3,50,460/- 3. Net Income Tax payable 9,460/- 4. Yearly income of deceased less tax 3,50,460 - 9,460 = 3,41,000/- 5. Future Prospects (C) 50% of 3,41,000/- = 1,70,500/- 6. Annual Income + Future Prospects (B+C=D) 3,41,000 + 1,70,500 = 5,11,500/- 7. Deduction towards personal expenses (E) (¼ of D) ¼ of 5,11,500/- = 1,27,875/- 8. Annual Loss of Dependancy (F) (D-E = F) 5,11,500 - 1,27,875 = 3,83,625/- 9. Multiplier (G) 15 10. Total loss of dependancy (FxG) 3,83,625 x 15 = 57,54,375/- 11. Conventional Heads: (a) Loss of consortium 70,000/- (b) Loss of Estate (c) Funeral Expenses 12. Total compensation 58,24,375/- 13. Interest 7% (V) Conclusions and Directions: 31. 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. 32. The security deposited by the said appellant in the wake of the order passed by this Court shall be discharged. 33. Both the appeals are partly allowed as above.