JUDGMENT : REKHA BORANA, J. 1. The present appeals arise out of the same judgment/Award dated 16.05.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Udaipur in MAC Case No.91/2018 (CIS No.977/2017) whereby a claim of Rs.32,17,500/- was awarded in the favour of the appellants-claimants. 2. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2256/2018 has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2646/2018 has been preferred by the Insurance Company with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned judgment/Award. 3. Brief facts as pleaded in the claim petition are that on 17.09.2017, while Savji Meena was travelling towards his home from Barapal on his motorcycle, a bus bearing registration No. RJ- 30-PA-2723 coming from Ahmedabad, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle due to which Savji sustained grievous injuries and unfortunately, succumbed to the injuries. An FIR was lodged pertaining to the said accident at Police Station Goverdhan Vilas, District Udaipur. The offending vehicle, on the date of accident, was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 4. 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.25,000/-, awarded total compensation of Rs.32,87,500/- in favour of the claimants, the breakup of which is as under: Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 25.09.2017. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the accident occurred due to the equal negligence of the deceased and not solely because of negligent driving of the bus driver. He submitted that the matter in hand was a clear case of contributory negligence. 6. Counsel submitted that the accident occurred on NH-8 i.e four lane going from Ahmedabad to Udaipur. On the said national highway, a divider and service lane exists on both the sides. The bus was going on its correct side from Ahmedabad to Udaipur whereas it was the deceased who came from the wrong side/direction from the service lane and turned towards the left to cross the highway. On the said national highway, a divider and service lane exists on both the sides. The bus was going on its correct side from Ahmedabad to Udaipur whereas it was the deceased who came from the wrong side/direction from the service lane and turned towards the left to cross the highway. As per Regulation 9 of the Rules of Road Regulations, 1989 it is necessary for those who enter the highway for the purpose of crossing and are at the intersection, to give way to the vehicles proceeding along the highway. However, the deceased failed to observe the said rule. 7. Counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred while not properly appreciating the circumstances narrated in the site plan. The mere fact that a challan was filed by the investigating authority against the bus driver could not have been the sole ground to fasten the liability on respondents. 8. In support of his above submissions, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company relied upon the following judgments: (i) Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Premlata Shukla and Others ; (2007) 13 SCC 476 (ii) Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri vs. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak and Other ; (2002) 6 SCC 455 9. On quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that at the time of the accident, the deceased was 57 years of age and thus, a multiplier of 9 ought to have been applied. Further, the learned Tribunal erred while assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.25,000/- whereas there was a blatant contradiction in the salary asserted by the claimants and the amount that was reflected in the bank account of the deceased. 10. Per contra learned counsel for the claimants while supporting the impugned judgment qua the findings relating to negligence, submitted that the said finding of the learned Tribunal is totally in consonance with the site plan and the material placed on record and hence does not deserve any interference. 11. Counsel submits that the burden to prove contributory negligence, if any, was on the Insurance Company and herein, no evidence whatsoever was led by the Insurance Company. Therefore, in absence of any such evidence, the learned Tribunal rightly recorded a finding that there was no negligence on part of the deceased. 12. 11. Counsel submits that the burden to prove contributory negligence, if any, was on the Insurance Company and herein, no evidence whatsoever was led by the Insurance Company. Therefore, in absence of any such evidence, the learned Tribunal rightly recorded a finding that there was no negligence on part of the deceased. 12. Counsel further submits that the site report clearly reflected that though there was an intersection, the deceased had almost crossed the same when the bus hit him and dragged the motorcycle to the next lane. In view of the said site report, the learned Tribunal rightly recorded a finding that the accident did not occur in the center of the road but was on the corner. The mere averment that the bus was being driven in the correct direction would not absolve its driver of liability for rash and negligent driving. 13. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, learned counsel for the claimants raised the following grounds: (i) The learned Tribunal erred while determining the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.25,000/- whereas specific documentary evidence was placed on record to prove that he was earning a monthly salary of Rs.40,967/-. (ii) The learned Tribunal erred in determining the age of the deceased to be 50 years whereas it was evident on record that he was 44 years of age on the date of accident. (iii) The learned Tribunal erred in applying the ratio of 10% qua future prospects whereas keeping into consideration the age of 44 years, future prospects at the rate of 25% ought to have been applied. (iv) Keeping into consideration the age of the deceased and nucleus of the family, a multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied and deduction to the extent of 1/5 th of the income qua personal expenses ought to have been made while determining the quantum of compensation. 14. In support of his submissions, counsel relied upon the following judgments: (i) Sachin Garg vs. State of U.P & Anr.; (2024) 11 SCC 687 (ii) Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. ; AIR 2018 SC 1900 . (iii) Suresh Devi and Ors. vs. Pukhraj Alias Pukharam Paanchuram Gurjar and Ors. ; S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2523/2007 (decided on 21.02.2023). (iv) Sushila vs. Mohan Singh & Ors.; S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2666/2005 (decided on 20.03.2014). Ltd. and Ors. ; AIR 2018 SC 1900 . (iii) Suresh Devi and Ors. vs. Pukhraj Alias Pukharam Paanchuram Gurjar and Ors. ; S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2523/2007 (decided on 21.02.2023). (iv) Sushila vs. Mohan Singh & Ors.; S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2666/2005 (decided on 20.03.2014). (v) United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Sugni Devi & Ors.; S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1431/2012 (decided on 24.08.2012). 15. Heard the counsels. Perused the record. 16. Coming on to the first ground regarding contributory negligence as raised by counsel for the Insurance Company, a perusal of the site plan ¼ u D'kk ekSdk½ reveals that the accident occurred at Mark ‘A’. The said spot is clearly at the end of the crossing, that is to say, the deceased had almost crossed the road and was about to turn on the next lane. The said fact fortifies the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal to the effect that the accident did not occur in the center of the road. 17. Further, it is evident that after being hit, the motorcycle was dragged till Mark ‘C’ and the deceased fell at Mark ‘B’. The said fact ipso facto implies the speed of the bus which, after hitting the motorcycle dragged it till Mark ‘C’, in the next lane. This Court is therefore of the clear opinion that no negligence on part of the deceased could have been concluded in the matter. 18. Further, the negligence of deceased, if any, could have been proved by the Insurance Company by leading appropriate evidence qua the same. The bus driver (defendant No.1) could have been the best witness to prove the same but then, neither did he enter the witness box nor did the Insurance company examine any other independent witness. As is the settled position of law, in claim proceedings, the standard of proof is not that of proof beyond reasonable doubt but that of preponderance of probabilities. The Court, on the evaluation of evidence before it, has to satisfy itself that the events as alleged in claim petition had actually transpired. 19. So far as Regulation 9 of the Regulations of 1989 as relied upon by counsel for the Insurance Company is concerned, the same reads as under: “9. The Court, on the evaluation of evidence before it, has to satisfy itself that the events as alleged in claim petition had actually transpired. 19. So far as Regulation 9 of the Regulations of 1989 as relied upon by counsel for the Insurance Company is concerned, the same reads as under: “9. Giving way to traffic at road junction: The driver of a motor vehicle shall, on entering road intersection, at which traffic is not being regulated, if the road entered is a main road designated as such, give way to the vehicles proceeding along that road, and in any other case give way to all traffic approaching the intersection on his right hand.” 20. A bare perusal of the above regulation reflects that there was no breach of the said regulation by the deceased in the present matter. As observed in the preceding paras, the deceased had almost crossed the road when he was hit by the bus and further, as observed by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Dr. Anoop Kumar Bhattacharya and Anr. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. ; 2021 SCC OnLine All 871 , the documents such as the FIR, the site map and the charge-sheet, which form part of the police record, even though they do not establish the occurrence, when considered holistically and prudently, could help draw an informed and intelligent inference as to the degree of probability which lends itself to the case set up by a claimant. Therein, the Court observed as under: “Was the FIR promptly lodged or was it lodged after an undue delay? Does the site plan conform to the recital contained in the FIR? Do injuries sustained corroborate the recital contained in the FIR? Does the charge sheet bolster the allegations contained in the FIR? These are the factors which when considered fairly and prudently could help to assess if the case set up by the claimants was more probable or not.” 21. Testing the present case on the touchstone of the above factors too, it cannot be concluded that the deceased was also equally negligent. These are the factors which when considered fairly and prudently could help to assess if the case set up by the claimants was more probable or not.” 21. Testing the present case on the touchstone of the above factors too, it cannot be concluded that the deceased was also equally negligent. Keeping into consideration the settled position of law and after evaluation of evidence available on record, specially the site plan, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the finding regarding negligence as recorded by the learned Tribunal as no case of contributory negligence on part of the deceased is made out. Consequently, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal with regard to liability of the Insurance Company. Further, there is no evidence to the contrary, available on record, to hold/conclude the opposite. Therefore, the ground as raised by counsel for the Insurance Company does not hold any water. Consequently, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2646/2018 preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is hence, dismissed 22. Coming on to the quantum of compensation, this Court is of the opinion that there is no reason to discard the documentary evidence i.e. the Service Certificate (Exhibit-18), the Salary Certificate (Exhibit-19), Pay Slip (Exhibit-20) and Bank Statement (Exhibit-21) as exhibited on record by the claimants. 23. A bare perusal of the Pay Slip reflects the gross income of the deceased to be Rs.32,201/- per month. The said salary is corroborated by the bank statement of the deceased which reflects a deposit of Rs.27,302/-, Rs.30,965/-, Rs.29,767/-, Rs.31,395/-, Rs.30,283/-, Rs.34,904/- and Rs.36,381/- respectively, as salary for the months of March 2017 to September 2017. 24. The learned Tribunal computed the income on an average basis at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month which, in the opinion of this Court, deserves enhancement keeping into consideration the specific documentary evidence available on record. The monthly salary of the deceased therefore deserves to be computed at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month. 25. Coming on to the age of the deceased, admittedly, there is a discrepancy in the date of birth as mentioned in all the other documents and that in the identity card. The learned Tribunal, considering the said discrepancy, determined the average age to be 50 years. The said conclusion seems to be erroneous keeping into consideration the age of the claimants. The learned Tribunal, considering the said discrepancy, determined the average age to be 50 years. The said conclusion seems to be erroneous keeping into consideration the age of the claimants. Further, the Aadhar card and the Service Certificate as exhibited on record reflect the year of birth of the deceased to be 1973 which means the deceased was almost 45 years of age at the time of accident. There is no reason to disbelieve the said documents and therefore, this Court deserves it appropriate to consider the age of the deceased to be 45 years. 26. So far as the amount to be awarded under the conventional heads is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. ; (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 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. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram ; (2018) 18 SCC 130 interpreted ‘consortium’ to be a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium as well as filial consortium. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the said amount under conventional heads shall be payable to all the claimants. 27. Consequently, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2256/2018 is partly allowed and the impugned judgment/Award dated 16.05.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Udaipur in MAC No.91/2018 (CIS No.977/2017) is modified to the extent that the claimants shall be entitled to the following compensation: 28. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment is made. The 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. 29. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.