JUDGMENT 1. This miscellaneous appeal under Sec. 173 (1) of Motor Vehicle Act is filed challenging the award dtd. 1/8/2015 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lahar, District Bhind in Claim Case No.53/2014. 2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal in short are that on 10/9/2014 at about 6:30 pm deceased Mahendra was returning from Lahar to his home by motorcycle on his own side and as he reached near Shankar Petrol Pump, Bhind Bhander Road, PS Lahar, a bus driven rashly and negligently by respondent/non-applicant No.1 bearing Registration No.MP30-P-0153 hit the motorcycle of the deceased. On account of which, Mahendra sustained grievous injuries and died on spot. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the said bus vide crime No.200/2014 and Merg No.31/2014 under Sec. 174 of Cr.P.C. was also registered. After enquiry under Sec. 174 of Cr.P.C., FIR was registered and after investigation, a criminal case under Sec. 304-A of IPC was filed against the respondent/non-applicant No.1. 3. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident has occurred and in the accident Mahendra died. However, learned Tribunal has also opined that the deceased was also negligent and due to his contributory negligence, the accident occurred. Learned Tribunal has found the percentage of negligence as 30 % and accordingly evaluated the compensation amount. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants prayed that the finding of the Tribunal in respect to contributory negligence to the deceased is contrary to the evidence available on record. Learned Claims Tribunal is against the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court and committed gross error of law while passing award on lower side and holding that the deceased was also responsible for the accident as it was head-on collision. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions by submitting that the Tribunal has rightly assumed the income of the deceased and calculated the compensation amount accordingly. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court. He further argued that since it was head-on collision, learned Tribunal reduced the amount upto 30 % from the compensation. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Upon perusal of the evidence adduced by the appellants/claimants reveals that the witnesses examined by the applicants have corroborated the fact in respect to the accident. He further argued that since it was head-on collision, learned Tribunal reduced the amount upto 30 % from the compensation. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Upon perusal of the evidence adduced by the appellants/claimants reveals that the witnesses examined by the applicants have corroborated the fact in respect to the accident. The offending vehicle driven by respondent No.1 Harish Chandra has not been disputed by the parties. The respondent/non-applicant No.1 has not appeared before the Tribunal to rebut the evidence produced by the applicants. Respondent No.3/Insurance company has also not examined any witnesses to rebut the evidence of the applicants. The documents relating to the criminal case pending against non-applicant No.1 are filed by the applicants and exhibited as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8. After going through the documents, it is apparent that the Investigating Agency has not found the negligence on the part of the deceased. The witnesses examined by the applicants have also not stated that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of deceased. The Tribunal arrived at above conclusion only on the basis of that it was head-on collision. Unless there is any evidence to show that the head-on collision was due to contributory negligence of the deceased or he was driving on the wrong side of the road or did anything wrong, it cannot be held that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the deceased. 8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sayed Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company ltd. reported in 2014 ACJ 627 held that "if the contribution of the deceased in the accident is not proved by the respondents by producing evidence, the findings of the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence cannot be upheld". 9. The Apex Court in the case of Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri Vs. Karmasey Kauvargi Tak and others SLP (Civil) No.5436/1994 , held that : "It is important to note that the respondents did not contend before the Tribunal that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant, the driver of the car. There was not even an allegation in the written statement filed by the respondents that the car driver was negligent and the accident occurred as result of partial negligence of the car driver. In this factual situation, it cannot be held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased". There was not even an allegation in the written statement filed by the respondents that the car driver was negligent and the accident occurred as result of partial negligence of the car driver. In this factual situation, it cannot be held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased". 10. The Apex Court in the case of Shanker Singh Vs. Mahesh reported in MACD 2013(1) MP 262, held that : "So far as the contributory negligence on the part of the appellant is concerned, since criminal case was registered against the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 did not turn up to explain in what circumstances accident occurred, this court is of the view that the learned tribunal was not justified in holding the appellant liable for accident, the finding of contributory negligence stands set aside". 11. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above judgments, the findings of the Tribunal below is found to be contrary to the settled principle in respect to the contributory negligence of deceased Mahendra. 12. In the present case, the Insurance company has not challenged the fact that the deceased Mahendra was working as Government Servant and his gross salary was Rs.21, 080.00 per month. Age of the deceased was also found to be proved as 56 years on the basis of the document Ex.D-2 in which his date-of-birth is mentioned as 1/11/1958. Learned trial Court has rightly held the annual income of the deceased Mahendra as 5, 17, 000/-. 13. In view of the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., ( 2017 ACJ 2700 ), the multiplier of 9 would be applicable and dependency would be 1/3. Claimants/appellants are also entitled to receive the enhanced compensation amount as under in the light of above case law :- Yearly Income : Rs.5, 17, 000.00 1/3 Dependency : Rs.1, 72, 333.00 Multiplier :9 Total Income : Rs.15, 50, 997.00 Future Prospects : Rs.2, 32, 649.00 Other heads : Rs.70, 000.00 Loss of consortium : Rs.40, 000.00 Total : Rs.18, 93, 646.00 14. As such, the total amount awarded to the claimants is enhanced from Rs.13, 52, 000.00 to Rs.18, 93, 646.00. As such, the total amount awarded to the claimants is enhanced from Rs.13, 52, 000.00 to Rs.18, 93, 646.00. The enhanced amount comes to Rs.5, 41, 646.00 (Rupees Five Lakh Forty One Thousand Six Hundred Forty Six only), with interest at the rate as fixed by the tribunal in the award which is ordered accordingly to be payable to the claimants as directed by the Tribunal in the same apportionment. The enhanced amount of compensation Rs.5, 41, 646.00 shall be payable to the claimants within 12 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Rest of the award impugned passed by the Tribunal shall remain intact. 15. If the enhanced amount of compensation is in excess to the valuation of appeal, the difference of the Court fee (if not already paid) shall be deposited by the appellants/ claimants within four weeks' from today and proof thereof shall be submitted before the Registry. Thereafter, Registry shall issue the certified copy of the order passed today. 16. Appeal stand allowed to the aforesaid extent and disposed of.