JUDGMENT : V. SUJATHA, J. Aggrieved by the impugned award dated 20.07.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.47 of 2014 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Nuzvid whereby the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.9,20,286/- towards total compensation to the claimants, as against the claim of Rs.16,00,000/-, this instant appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement. 2) For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3) The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of the John Willy Brant (herein after referred to as “deceased”) who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.05.2014. Petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased, petitioner No.4 is the mother of the deceased. 4) The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows: On 27.05.2014, while the deceased was going to his official duty for collection of amounts due to his company, on his motor cycle from Markapur to Donakonda, at about 6.30 p.m. when he reached near the outskirts of Donakonda, the offending vehicle i.e. Mini lorry bearing No.AP 07 X 4183 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without observing the other vehicular traffic hit the motor cycle of the deceased in opposite direction, as a result of which, the deceased and another person fell on the road, sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot. The police registered a case in Crime No.60 of 2014 of Donakonda Police Station under Section 304-A of I.P.C. 5) At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 46 years and was working as Assistant Manager in Shriram City Finance Limited, Markapur and used to earn Rs.10,382/- per month as a salary working as Assistant Manager in Shiram City Union Finance Limited, Markapur. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners who are wife, children and mother of the deceased suffered with mental agony, deprived of their income and welfare. Respondent No.3 is the driver, respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. 6) Respondent No.3 remained ex parte. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners who are wife, children and mother of the deceased suffered with mental agony, deprived of their income and welfare. Respondent No.3 is the driver, respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. 6) Respondent No.3 remained ex parte. 7) Respondent No.1 – owner of the vehicle filed a counter denying the claim of the claimants and contended that there is no rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle i.e. Mini lorry bearing No.AP 07 X 4183. Respondent No.3 driver of the crime vehicle is holding valid driving license, as such respondent No.2 being insurer of respondent No.1 has to indemnify the claim of the petitioners. The claim of compensation is highly excessive and requested to dismiss the petition. 8) Respondent No.2 – insurance company filed its counter contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased, the offending vehicle is not insured with respondent No.2 insurance company. The insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. Further, the driver is not having valid driving license at the time of accident. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive, and requested to dismiss the petition. 9) Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the death of deceased John Willy Brant is the resultant of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle Elcher Mini Lorry bearing No.AP 07X 4183? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so to what amount? (3) To what relief? 10) During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, petitioner No.1 was examined as P.W.1, and G.Kasaiah-cleaner of the mini lorry, M.Ramana Reddy – employee in Sriram City Union Finance Limited, A.Srinivasa Rao - employee in Shriram Chits Company Limited were examined as P.Ws.2 to 4 and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, no witnesses were examined, but Ex.B.1 – copy of insurance policy was marked. 11) Taking into consideration the said oral and documentary evidence, while answering issue No.1 the Tribunal held that the deceased also contributed for the accident and estimated the contributory negligence at the ratio of 70:30 on the part of the driver of mini lorry and the deceased respectively. 11) Taking into consideration the said oral and documentary evidence, while answering issue No.1 the Tribunal held that the deceased also contributed for the accident and estimated the contributory negligence at the ratio of 70:30 on the part of the driver of mini lorry and the deceased respectively. 12) Issue Nos.2 and 3 were also answered in favour of the petitioners and awarded Rs.9,20,286/- under different heads towards compensation after deducting 30% amount towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed by the appellants – claimants. 13) Ms.Chunduri Udaya, learned counsel for the appellants – claimants, apart from various grounds, mainly contended that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3-driver of Eicher Mini Lorry bearing No.AP 07 X 4183 only, and there is no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the accident, but the tribunal erred in deducting 30% towards contributory negligence of the deceased. Since the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of mini lorry, the Tribunal ought to have granted total compensation, requested to allow the appeal. 14) Ms. S.A.V.Ratnam, learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 – Insurance company, contended that the Tribunal below rightly arrived at the conclusion that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and rightly deducted 30% amount towards contributory negligence of the deceased, which need not be interfered with by this Court and requested to dismiss the present appeal. 15) Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows “Whether the award of the Tribunal below granting compensation of Rs.9,20,286/-, after deducting 30% towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, is on reasonable basis? 16) I have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. P.W.1 – wife of the deceased deposed that the offending vehicle i.e. Mini Lorry bearing No.AP 07X 4183 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without observing the other vehicular traffic and hit the motor cycle of the deceased in opposite direction, as a result of which deceased and another person fell on the road and sustained severe multiple injuries and the deceased died on the spot. However, she is not an eyewitness to the accident. 17) P.W.2 – cleaner of the offending mini lorry bearing No.AP 07 X 4183 deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without observing the other vehicles and hit the motorcycle came in opposite direction and caused the accident. Further, his name was shown in the charge sheet as prosecution witness as he is an eyewitness to the accident. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A.1 – copy of F.I.R., Ex.A.2 – copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.3 – copy of inquest report, Ex.A.4 – copy of postmortem examination report, Ex.A.5 – copy of accident report from Motor Vehicle Inspector, Darsi, would go to show that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of mini lorry bearing No.AP 07X 4183. There is no evidence on record to show that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. With regard to contributory negligence of the deceased, the Tribunal below made the following observation: “When the motor bike and mini lorry came in opposite directions why the deceased could not avoid the accident, is not stated, if he is with care and conscious, certainly he can, avoid the accident by taking the bike on extreme left, but he failed to do so. In result of which the deceased the driver of motor cycle and another person who pillion rider of the motor cycle also died in the accident. Therefore, it can be said that there is contribution from the side of the deceased in causing the accident which can be estimated at 70:30% on the part of the driver of mini lorry and the deceased.” 18) In the absence of any evidence to establish that the deceased drove the motorcycle No.AP 27 AH 4536 in a rash and negligent manner and contributed to the accident, the Tribunal held that if the deceased drove the motorcycle with care and conscious, certainly he can avoid the accident, but he failed to do so and estimated the negligence at the ratio of 70:30 on the part of the driver of the mini lorry and the deceased respectively. As there is no evidence on record to prove that the deceased drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and contributed to the accident, the view expressed by the Tribunal below that if the deceased had been vigilant and would have driven the motorcycle carefully, the accident might have been avoided is presumptuous on the face of the record as the same is based purely on conjectures and surmises. 19) In “Sushma Vs. Nitin Ganapati Rangole (Civil Appeal No(s).10648 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s).21172 of 2021), the Hon?ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case of contributory negligence held as follows: “The Courts below erred in concluding that it is a case of contributory negligence, because in order to establish contributory negligence, some act or omission which materially contributed to the accident or damage should be attributed to the person against whom it is alleged.” 20) As per the law laid down by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in the said judgment, in order to establish contributory negligence, some act or omission which materially contributed to the accident should be attributed to the person against whom it is alleged. But in the present case, nothing on record indicates that the motorcycle was being driven at an excessively high speed. The Tribunal below recorded an incongruous finding that if the deceased drove the motorcycle with care and conscious, certainly he can avoid the accident. Therefore, the observation made by the Tribunal below on the issue of contributory negligence is paradoxical and this Court is of the opinion that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the mini lorry bearing No.AP 07 X 4183. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal below that there is contributory negligence at the ratio of 70:30 on the part of the driver of mini lorry and the deceased respectively is set aside. 21) P.W.3 – employee of Shriram City Finance Limited, Markapur deposed that the deceased worked as Manager in the said company and his salary was Rs.10,382/- per month. Ex.A.6 is the salary certificate of the deceased for the month of May, 2014, which shows that the monthly salary of the deceased is Rs.10,382/- per month at the time of accident. Mr.A.Srinivasa Rao, Manager of Shriram Chits Company Limited, Markapur Branch, got examined himself as P.W.4 and filed Ex.A.7-letter of appointment of deceased dated 13.07.2001. Ex.A.6 is the salary certificate of the deceased for the month of May, 2014, which shows that the monthly salary of the deceased is Rs.10,382/- per month at the time of accident. Mr.A.Srinivasa Rao, Manager of Shriram Chits Company Limited, Markapur Branch, got examined himself as P.W.4 and filed Ex.A.7-letter of appointment of deceased dated 13.07.2001. According to him, the deceased was appointed as Office Assistant and later promoted as Assistant Manager. As no documentary evidence was produced to prove that the deceased was promoted as Assistant Manager, the Tribunal below relying on Ex.A.6 – salary certificate of the deceased issued by Shriram City Union Finance Limited, the Tribunal below considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,382/- per month, then his annual income would be Rs.1,24,584/- (Rs.10,382 X 12), out of which, 1/4 th has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, then the actual annual income would come to Rs.93,438/- (1,24,584-31,146). As the deceased is aged about 46 years at the time of accident, multiplier applicable to his age group is “13” as per the law laid down by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in “ Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation , [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] ” Therefore, after applying multiplier “13”, it would come to Rs.12,14,694/- [Rs.93,436/- X 13]. As there is no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the award of amount of Rs.8,50,286/- towards loss of dependency is enhanced to Rs.12,14,694/-. 22) Further, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- to petitioner No.1 towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which need not be interfered with by this Court. In total, the claimants are entitled to Rs.12,84,694/- towards compensation. 23) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the amounts enhanced by this Court, are as follows: S.No. Head of the claim Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Amounts now enhanced by this Court 1. Loss of Dependency Rs.8,50,286/- Rs.3,64,408/- 2. Towards loss of estate 15,000/- ------ 3. Loss of consortium for petitioner No.1 40,000/- ----- 4. 23) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the amounts enhanced by this Court, are as follows: S.No. Head of the claim Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Amounts now enhanced by this Court 1. Loss of Dependency Rs.8,50,286/- Rs.3,64,408/- 2. Towards loss of estate 15,000/- ------ 3. Loss of consortium for petitioner No.1 40,000/- ----- 4. Funeral Expenses 15,000/- ------ Total Rs.9,20,286/- Rs.3,64,408/- Amount of compensation now awarded is as follows: Total compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.9,20,286/- Amount of compensation now enhanced Rs.3,64,408/- Amount of compensation now enhanced Rs.12,84,694/- 24) In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation to Rs.12,84,694/- from Rs.9,20,286/- with interest at 7.5% P.A. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. 25) The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.