Judgment :-

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant before us is the driver and owner of the jeep bearing registration No. MP-04J 1824 which met with an accident on 21.11.1999 having collided with a truck. The deceased Balma @ Balram Gond, Ramgopal and Shankarlal admittedly were travelling in the said vehicle.

3. A First Information Report was lodged. The heirs and legal representatives of the deceased filed applications for grant of compensation in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") which was marked as Claim Case Nos. 76, 78 and 79 of 2002.

4. The learned Tribunal, having regard to the rival contentions of the parties, framed the following issues:

"1. Whether on 21.11.99 in the night at about 8 a.m. near village Semri, non applicant No. 1 driving Jeep No. MP04 1824 and truck No. MP04K2028 driven negligently and rashly the collision between the two vehicle occurred and in the result Shankarlal died.

2. Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers? If so, effect.

3. At 8 p.m. Jeep No. MP04J1824 was dashed by truck No. MP04 K 2028 and the accident was caused, if so, effect..

4. Whether applicants are entitled for compensation.

5. Relief & Cost."

5. The learned Tribunal upon consideration of the depositions of the witnesses held that neither the truck No. MP04K 2028 was involved in the accident, nor was it caused on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver. The learned Tribunal passed awards in all the three cases as under:

Claim Case No. 76 of 2002 Rs. 1,32,000/-

Claim Case No. 78 of 2002 Rs. 1,92,000/-

Claim Case No. 79 of 2002 Rs. 4,22,400/-

6. Appeals were preferred thereagainst by the appellant. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court, however, reversed the said findings, holding:

"16. Coming to question of negligence, though Mohan Singh and two other witnesses examined by the claimant has stated that it was the truck driver who drove it in rash and negligent manner. However, in the claim petition, it was rightly mentioned that jeep driver also drove it in rash and negligent manner and the accident took place when two vehicles dashed against each other. Both were coming from opposite direction, thus, it was the duty of both the drivers to avoid the collision in which they have failed. Thus, we come to the conclusion that it is a case of contributory negligence in equal proportion of both drivers."

Although we are of the opinion that the High Court in doing so should have considered the matter at some details and it was further required to assign some reasons in support thereof, but, it is not necessary for us to consider that aspect of the matter as the owner or the insurer of the truck having not preferred any appeal, the same has attained finality.

In this appeal we are concerned with only one question, viz., as to whether any case has been made out for enhancement of the amount of compensation in favour of the appellant.

7. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the age of the deceased Shankarlal was 35 years. His monthly income was assessed at Rs. 1500/-per month. One-third of the said amount was deducted as his personal expenditure. Applying the multiplier of 10, it was held that the applicants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/-.

As regards the quantum of compensation payable to the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Balma is concerned, the loss of dependency was determined at Rs. 12,000/- per annum by the Tribunal. Having regard to the fact that he was aged 25 years, the multiplier of 15 was used to hold that a compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- should be granted.

The deceased Ram Gopal was aged 31 years at the time of the accident. A multiplier of 12 was used in his case and the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,22,400/-was held to be payable to him on the premise that the loss of dependency was Rs. 34,200/- per annum.

8. The Hig