JUDGMENT : 1. The present misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded vide judgment dated 01.02.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner in MAC Case No.240/95. The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment dated 01.02.2002 awarded total compensation of Rs.3,59,000/- in favour of the claimants-appellants. However, on account of contributory negligence, 50% amount was deducted from the awarded compensation and an amount of Rs.1,79,500/- was awarded in favour of the claimants alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 28.11.1996. 2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim petition are that on 11.05.1995, Devi Singh was travelling with his family members to his village Thathar. A truck bearing registration No. PCH-8427 coming from Ganganagar was driven rashly and negligently by its driver Jasvindra Singh on the wrong side of the road and hence, collided with another vehicle due to which number of persons including Devi Singh died. The offending vehicle, on the date of accident, was insured with respondent No.3 – Insurance Company. 3. The appellants-claimants being the wife and children of the deceased, are his dependants. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.11,57,000/-. However, the learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.1800/-, awarded total compensation of Rs.3,59,000/- in favour of the claimants-appellants. However, on account of contributory negligence, 50% amount was deducted from the awarded compensation and an amount of Rs.1,79,500/- was awarded in favour of the claimants-appellants, the breakup of which is as under: 1. Annual Income (after addition of future prospects (25%) and deduction towards personal expenses (1/4) in monthly income of Rs.1800/-) (1800 + 450 = 2250 x 12 = 27000 – 6750 = Rs.20,250/-) Rs.20,250/- 2. Loss of Annual Income (as per the age of the deceased i.e. 40 years, multiplier of 16). Rs.20,250 x 16 = Rs.3,24,000/- 3. Under the head of ‘consortium’ Rs.30,000/- 4. Under the head of ‘Funeral expenses’ Rs.5,000/- 5. Total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.3,59,000/- 6. 50% amount deducted on account of contributory negligence. Rs.1,79,500/- 7. Final Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.1,79,500/- Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 4. Under the head of ‘Funeral expenses’ Rs.5,000/- 5. Total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.3,59,000/- 6. 50% amount deducted on account of contributory negligence. Rs.1,79,500/- 7. Final Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.1,79,500/- Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 4. Averring the compensation to be meagre, the claimants appellants have preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants raised the following grounds: i) The learned Tribunal erred in concluding that the present was a case of contributory negligence as the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of Jasvinder Singh, the driver of truck as the offending vehicle was driven by him on the wrong side. ii) The learned Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs.60/- per day i.e. Rs.1800/- per month whereas the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month through agricultural activities. iii) The learned Tribunal erred in computing the future prospects of the deceased @25% only. iv) The learned Tribunal erred in not awarding the adequate compensation qua the conventional heads. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Regarding the first ground, contributory negligence of the deceased as raised by learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, it is evident that the learned Tribunal held both the offending vehicles equally liable for the accident because of the reason that the vehicles collided from opposite directions in the center of the road. However, this Court is of the opinion that the conclusion of both the vehicles being equally negligent solely on basis of the accident having occurred in the center of the road, cannot be said to be logical. As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors.; (2013) 9 SCC 166 and Minu Rout & Ors. vs. Satya Pradyumna Mahapatra & Ors.; (2013) 10 SCC 695 , the mere position of the vehicles after accident as shown in the site plan cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and their directions, etc. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and their directions, etc. depends on number of factors like speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other, etc. From the scene of the accident, presumption regarding the manner in which the accident was caused, can be made but in absence of direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver. 7. In the present matter, as is evident on record, no evidence was led on behalf of respondent-Insurance Company. The driver and owner did not prefer even any reply to the claim petition. Meaning thereby, it was the case of no evidence on behalf of the respondents. However, the learned Tribunal concluded the contributory negligence of the deceased too on basis of the site plan and the alleged admissions in the statements of Pratap Singh (A.W.-4) and Bhanwar Singh (A.W.-5). The said two witnesses, in their cross examination, although admitted the fact of both the vehicles having collided from front and the vehicle (truck) in which they were travelling having turned upside down after the accident, but then, both these witnesses, in clear terms, deposed that Bhanwar Singh, driver of their truck was driving slowly on its own side whereas the driver of the other truck drove rashly and negligently. The driver and owner of the other vehicle did not choose to file any reply nor did the Insurance Company get the said driver examined before the learned Tribunal. In the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the equal negligence concluded by the learned Tribunal deserves to be modified to 25%. As a result, the deduction of 25% of the award amount would only be deducted from the award to be passed in favour of the claimants. 8. Regarding the income of the deceased, learned Tribunal assessed the same to be Rs.1,800/- per month. Pushpa Kanwar (A.W.-1) the appellant claimant, in her statements, submitted the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month from his agricultural activities. 8. Regarding the income of the deceased, learned Tribunal assessed the same to be Rs.1,800/- per month. Pushpa Kanwar (A.W.-1) the appellant claimant, in her statements, submitted the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month from his agricultural activities. Keeping into consideration the fact that the deceased was a person of 40 years of age and was an owner of 25 bighas of land (as deposed by the claimant), he definitely would have been earning at least Rs.3,000/- per month as claimed by the claimant. Although, no document regarding income of the deceased has been placed on record but then, as has been claimed, the deceased was engaged in agricultural activities and hence, there could not be any direct documentary evidence available qua the same with the claimants. Further, there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of the claimant in view of the fact that no contrary evidence on behalf of the respondents has been brought on record. The income of the deceased is therefore assessed @ Rs.3,000/- per month and the finding of the learned Tribunal is modified to that extent. 9. Further, in light of the judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors.; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.; (2017) 16 SCC 680 , this court is of the opinion that the future prospects will be assessed at 40% and the multiplier corresponding to the deceased's age (40 years) will be 15. 10. Regarding the ground qua the amount to be awarded under the head of the consortium, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), has fixed the amount payable under the conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses to be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the amount of Rs.40,000/- is to be awarded under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ to each of the dependents. 11. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment & award dated 01.02.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bikaner in MAC Case No.240/95 is modified to the extent that the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to the following compensation: 1. 11. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment & award dated 01.02.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bikaner in MAC Case No.240/95 is modified to the extent that the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to the following compensation: 1. Income per month (after addition of future prospects (40%) and deduction for personal and living expenses (1/4) in the monthly income of Rs.3,000/-) Rs. 3,150/- 2. Loss of Annual Income (as per the age of deceased i.e. 40 years, multiplier of 15). 3,150 x 12 x 15 = Rs.5,67,000/- 3. Under the head of ‘Consortium’ 40,000 x 5 = Rs.2,00,000/- 4. Under the head of ‘Loss of estate’ Rs.15,000/- 5. Under the head of ‘Funeral expenses’ Rs.15,000/- 6. Total amount of compensation Rs.7,97,000/- 7. Less–25% towards Contributory Negligence Rs.1,99,250/- 8. Final amount of compensation (after enhancement) 7,97,000-1,99,250 = Rs.5,97,750/- 9. Amount Awarded by Tribunal Rs.1,79,500/- 10. Enhanced amount to be paid 5,97,750-1,79,500 =Rs.4,18,250/- 12. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment is made. The respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount (if not deposited yet) and the enhanced amount of compensation with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. Upon deposition, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the same to the claimants in terms of the award. 13. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.