Narendra Kumar Jain, J.- Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The claimant-appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar in MAC No. 43/1989, whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the compensation of Rs. 80,000/-in favour of the appellants and deducted 40% out of it towards negligence on the part of the deceased, therefore, total compensation of Rs. 48,000/-was allowed.

3. The appellants are parents of the deceased Upendra Kumar, who was admittedly travelling in a bus by sitting on the roof top of it. The appellants filed an application for compensation in respect of death of Upendra Kumar who died while travelling on the top roof of the bus.

4. The Non-claimants No. 1 and 2, owner and driver filed their written reply wherein contents of the application were denied. The Insurance Company filed a separate reply to the claim petition and denied the contents of the application and submitted that their liability to the compensation is limited only upto 50,000/-.

5. The learned Tribunal framed 8 issues and also heard learned Counsel for both the parties. The claimants examined AW. 1 to AW. 4 and produced documentary evidence Exhibit-1 to Exhibit P/6. The non-claimants examined NAW-1 to NAW-4 and produced documents Exhibit NA-1 to Exhibit NA-4. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record decided Issue Nos. 1 and 5 holding that bus driver was negligent upto 60% and deceased was negligent upto 40%. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal while considering Issue No. 2 held that as per contents of application for compensation itself , the deceased was earning Rs. 364/-per month as salary as he was working on temporary basis in Water Works Department. The deceased was unmarried. The age of the father of the deceased was 48 years. The Tribunal on the basis of the salary certificate assessed Rs. 4,368/-as salary for one year which was rounded off to Rs. 4,500/-. One third amount was deducted for personal expenses and Rs. 3,000/-per year was assessed for the purpose of compensation. The span of life of father was treated as 68 years and as such awarded compensation for 20 years. Rs. 3,000/-per month was multiplied by 20 and awarded Rs. 60,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 20,000/-under all other heads and as such total compensation of Rs. 80,000/-was assessed and because of 60% negligence on the part of bus driver, a amount of Rs. 48,000/-was awarded in favour of the claimants appellants. The Tribunal also awarded 12% interest from the date of application i.e., 110.1989 with a condition that in case payment is not made within 2 months then the rate of interest will be 15% per annum.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that deceased was travelling in the bus by sitting on the rooftop of it was in the knowledge of the driver and as such, the Tribunal has committed illegality in deducting 40% of the amount of compensation for the negligence of the deceased. He cited Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh, S.R.T.C Bangalore & Anr. vs. Smt. Sunanda & Anr., 2004 (1)

T.A.C. 826 (Kant.), wherein the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held as under:-“It is not in dispute that the deceased was travelling on the top of the bus in question. It is also not in dispute that the deceased has loaded tin sheets on rooftop of the bus. For the purpose of loading these tin sheets on rooftop, the deceased must have taken sufficient time and the same cannot be done without the knowledge of the driver and conductor of the bus. Such loading of the goods on the top of the bus will not be allowed without the conductor having collected the requisite fair from the passenger. It was the duty of the conductor and the driver of the bus to have noticed if there were any passengers on the rooftop and to ask them to alight from the rooftop and to board the bus. Boarding of the bus n