JUDGMENT : GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHA, J. All these three appeals arise out of a common judgment passed in Claim Case Nos. 39 of 2011 and 46 of 2011. Claimants have preferred M.A. Nos. 2 & 3 of 2016 for enhancement of compensation amount, whereas Insurance Company has preferred M.A. No. 117 of 2016 against the contributory liability being fixed to the extent of 60% on the Insurance Company, and also against the direction for pay and recover with respect to the 40% of compensation, the primary liability of which is on the owner of the Scorpio. 2. As per the case of the claimants on 26.05.11 at about 7 p.m., Scorpio Bearing registration no. JH-0S-2510 met with an accident involving truck bearing registration no. JH-10E-5463. The accident was allegedly caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck. Pramod Kumar Singh was driving the Scorpio at the relevant time of accident, who succumbed to the fatal injuries sustained in the accident. Shanu Singh, who was also travelling in the Scorpio also died in the said accident. 3. Claims Case No. 46 of 2011 has been filed by the dependants of Pramod Kumar Singh, who was at the time of death aged about 29 years and was in a transport business with a monthly income of Rs.7500/-. A total compensation of Rs 13,05,000/- has been awarded to the claimants taking his annual Income Tax Return of Rs.1,60,000/- approx. After deduction of the Income Tax amount, his annual income was accepted to be Rs.1,20,000/- and considering four dependants 1/4th has been deducted as the living expense of the deceased. M.A. No. 3 of 2016 has been preferred for the enhancement of the compensation amount. 4. Claim case No.39 of 2011 was preferred by the dependants of Shanu Singh, who also died in the same accident and was travelling in the Scorpio with Pramod Kumar Singh at the relevant time of accident. He was self- employed with a monthly income of Rs.7,500/- and was aged 29 years at the time of accident and left behind three dependants at the time of his death. A compensation of Rs.5,55,000/- has been awarded taking notional income of Rs.3,000/- per month for seven month and Rs.7500/- for five months, 1/4th as the deduction for living expense, 35 years as his age as per the post-mortem report, Rs.60,000/- as the annual income. 5. A compensation of Rs.5,55,000/- has been awarded taking notional income of Rs.3,000/- per month for seven month and Rs.7500/- for five months, 1/4th as the deduction for living expense, 35 years as his age as per the post-mortem report, Rs.60,000/- as the annual income. 5. The main contention of the claimants is that only Rs.15,000/- has been awarded under the conventional head and loss of income under the heading of future prospect has not been considered for computing the annual income of the deceased, and further interest has been awarded from the date of judgment. 6. Learned Tribunal recorded a finding that there was a contributory negligence in the ratio of 40:60 of the driver of the Scorpio and Truck respectively. The document of insurance filed by the owner of the Scorpio was not accepted by the Tribunal and 60% of the compensation amount was fixed on the insurer of the Truck (Oriental Insurance Company), with a further direction to pay and recover the 40% of the amount from the owner of the Scorpio. 7. A petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code was allowed by this Court and the photocopy of the insurance policy has been adduced into evidence from which it will be evident that Scorpio was insured for the period 24.09.2011 to 20.12.2011. Earlier claimants had filed the Insurance Policy which was proved and marked as Exhibit X/2. Learned Tribunal did not accept the Insurance of the vehicle for the reason that the Engine number and Chassis number in the Insurance Policy did not correspond with the R.C. Book (Exhibit X/3). It was against this background that the petition under Order XLI Rule 27 was allowed and the copy was produced by the claimants showing the Insurance of Scorpio in the name of insured Pramod Kumar Singh valid from 24.09.2011 to 20.12.2011. M.A. No. 117 of 2016 8. As per the case of the claimants in the claim cases an accident took place on 26.05.2011 involving Scorpio bearing registration no. JH 02S 2510 and truck bearing registration no. JH 10E 5463. In the said accident, Pramod Kumar Singh, who was owner cum driver of the said Scorpio and Shanu Singh, who was travelling in the said vehicle, died in the accident. JH 02S 2510 and truck bearing registration no. JH 10E 5463. In the said accident, Pramod Kumar Singh, who was owner cum driver of the said Scorpio and Shanu Singh, who was travelling in the said vehicle, died in the accident. It is averred in the claim application that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck. 9. The owner of the vehicle was impleaded as O.P. No.5 and insurer of Scorpio being Sri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. was impleaded as O.P. No. 6. Learned Tribunal recorded a finding on issue no.4 that it was a case of contributory negligence and apportioned the liability on the Scorpio driver and truck driver in the ratio of 40% and 60%. 10. A total compensation of Rs.5,55,000/- was awarded in compensation Case No. 39 of 2011 and compensation of Rs.13,05,000/- awarded in Claim Case No. 46 of 2011. 11. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company that it is definite finding of the Tribunal that it was a case of contributory negligence in which liability of the driver of the truck was only 60%, however it is the appellant-Insurance Company in M.A. No. 117 of 2016 has been directed to make full and final satisfaction of the entire 100% compensation awarded in favour of the claimants in Claim Case No. 39 of 2011 along with simple interest of 7% per annum. 12. From a definite finding of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal at page 12 of the judgment in Claim Case No. 39 of 2011, the Scorpio was not under the Insurance cover of Sri Ram General Insurance Company. It was for this reason that the Tribunal saddled the liability to pay the entire compensation amount upon Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. FINDING 13. I find merit in the argument advanced on behalf of the Appellant/Oriental Insurance Company, that having recorded a finding of contributory negligence of the driver of the truck to the extent of 60%, it could not have been made liable to pay the 40% of the compensation, for which only the owner of the Scorpio or its insurer- Sri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. could have been made liable. 14. 14. A petition for additional evidence filed by the claimants of M.A. No.3 of 2016 arising out of Claim Case No. 46 of 2011 was allowed, vide order dated 31.01.2024. By way of additional evidence, policy of Insurance of Scorpio has been brought on record, from which it is evident that interest of Pramod New 10A-01-1895 Kumar Singh was under the insurance cover for vehicle no. with Engine No.HAA 4L 84379 Chassis No.MA 1 8TA 2HANA 2M 26613. The name of insured, chassis number and engine number of the vehicle corresponds with the offending Scorpio bearing registration no. JH 02S 2510 which is apparent from the registration certificate effective from 24.09.2011 to 20.12.2011. This gives credence to the argument on behalf of appellant that the Scorpio vehicle was under the insurance cover of Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited and there was error in mentioning registration number in the insurance policy. From the additional evidence it can be safely concluded that Scorpio bearing registration no. JH 02S 2510, was under the insurance cover of Sri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of the accident. 15. Despite the fact that Scorpio was under insurance cover of Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, I find force in the argument on behalf of Insurance Company that heirs and decedents of Pramod Kumar Singh, who are claimants in M.A. No.3 of 2016, will not be entitled to claim compensation in view of the fact that the deceased was the owner of the vehicle and the accident took place due to the contributory negligence to the extent of 40% on the part of its driver in view of the ratio laid down in. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashalata Bhowmik & Others, (2018) 9 SCC 801 . 16. Claimants of M.A. No. 3 of 2016 will be entitled to 60% of the compensation from the insurer of the truck i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 17. Claimants of M.A. No.2 of 2016 shall be entitled to get the compensation amount in the ratio of 60% : 40% from the insurer of the truck being Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and 40% from Sri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. 18. Age of the deceased Pramod Kumar Singh as per the claim application was 33 years, but as per the driving licence his age of 29 years has been taken to compute the compensation. Age of the deceased Pramod Kumar Singh as per the claim application was 33 years, but as per the driving licence his age of 29 years has been taken to compute the compensation. Taking 29 years as his age, annual income as per the ITR return to be Rs 1,20,000/-, and four dependants at the time of his death, the final compensation amount in Claim Case No.46 of 2011 shall work as under: Annual Income after deducting Income Tax Rs.1,20,000/- Future Prospect Rs.1,20,000/- X 40% Rs.48,000/- After adding annual income and future prospect Rs.1,20000/- + Rs.48,000/- =Rs.1,68,000/- Living expense of the deceased (1/4th as total nos. of dependants are 4) Rs.1,68,000/-X… =Rs.42,000/- After deduction Rs.1,68,000/- - Rs.42,000/- = Rs.1,26,000/- Multiplier of 17 taking the age of the deceased to be 29 Rs.1,26,000/-X17=Rs 21,42,000 Conventional Head Rs.70,000/- Total Compensation Rs.21,42,000/-+Rs.70,000/- =Rs.22,12,000/- 19. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is liable to pay 60% of the compensation of Rs.22,12,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application within one month from the date of the order before the learned Tribunal, and the same shall be disbursed to the respective claimants on proper identification as per the terms of disbursement decided by tribunal. M.A. No. 2 of 2016 20. Reason given by the Tribunal in para-10 for not accepting the monthly income of the deceased Shanu Singh at the time of accident to be Rs.7,500/-, the Judgment is without any evidence and perverse. Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that he had an annual income of Rs.60,000/- as the marriage season is only for five months. This is a conjecture and cannot replace the evidence already brought on record. 21. Taking age of the deceased- Shanu Singh 35 years as per post-mortem report, and annual income of Rs.90,000/- and three dependants at the time of his death, the final compensation amount shall work as under: - Annual Income = Rs.7500/- X12 Rs.90,000/- Future Prospect Rs.90,000/- X 40% Rs.36,000/- After adding annual income and future prospect Rs.90,000/- + Rs.36,000/- =Rs.1,26,000/- Deduction (1/4th as total nos. of dependants are 3) Rs.1,26,000/-X… =Rs.31,500/- After deduction Rs.1,26,000/- - Rs.31,500/- = Rs.94,500/- Multiplier of 16 taking the age of the deceased to be 35 as per post-mortem report Rs. 15,12,000/- Conventional Head Rs.70,000/- Total Compensation Rs.15,12,000/-+Rs.70,000/- =Rs.15,82,000/- 22. of dependants are 3) Rs.1,26,000/-X… =Rs.31,500/- After deduction Rs.1,26,000/- - Rs.31,500/- = Rs.94,500/- Multiplier of 16 taking the age of the deceased to be 35 as per post-mortem report Rs. 15,12,000/- Conventional Head Rs.70,000/- Total Compensation Rs.15,12,000/-+Rs.70,000/- =Rs.15,82,000/- 22. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is liable to pay 60% of the compensation of Rs.15,82,000/- and Sri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. shall be liable to pay 40% of the compensation amount, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application within one month from the date of the order before the learned Tribunal and the same shall be disbursed to the respective claimants on proper identification as per the terms of disbursement decided by tribunal. Rest of the 40% is to be paid to the heirs of the Pramod Kumar Singh. 23. M.A. No.2 of 2016, M.A. No.3 of 2016 and M.A. No.117 of 2016, are accordingly disposed of. Statutory amount deposited by the Insurance Company to be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the appellants as per the term fixed by the Tribunal. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.