A driver of a motor vehicle is required to slow down and give way to traffic when approaching an intersection, and a driver who enters an intersection from a side road must yield to traffic on the main road.

1. - This Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed against the award dated February 18, 1987, in case No. 255 of 1984, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur.

2. It will suffice to state for the purpose of this appeal that on June 23,1984, an accident took place on Jaipur Amber Road, while deceased Rafiq Ahmed was going on his scooter No. RRB 4091 towards Amber at about 6 p.m. in the evening, along with his son, aged two years and Sayed Ahmad, who was sitting on the pillion. The accident took place near the crossing of road, turning towards Ramgarh. It is alleged that the truck came from Ramgarh Road side coming at fast speed and struck with the scooter on the wrong side. As a result of the impact the deceased Rafiq and his child died on the spot. The truck driver ran away from the site of the accident. A claim petition was filed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after recording evidence of both the parties and hearing the learned Counsel awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 68,000/- to the Appellants.

3. The contention of Mr. H.M. Bhargava, learned Counsel for the Appellants, is that the Tribunal has seriously erred in holding that the deceased was liable for contributory negligence on account of which 50% of amount was deducted from the total award of Rs. 1,36,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. It is also contended that it has come in evidence that the deceased was earning Rs. 50/- per day as he was 'nagina saj, but in spite of this the Tribunal in its wisdom has kept the income of the deceased as Rs. 20/- per day only. Out of this amount ⅓rd was deducted by the Tribunal on account of personal expenses of the deceased and Rs. 400/- was kept as amount of dependency per month. It is further contended that the deceased was young man of 26 years. He was doing private business of his own and the courts in India have been taking 70 years as normal span of life. However, the Tribunal applied multiplier of only 25 years, keeping the age as 51 years only. It is further urged that the multiplier should be applied taking the span of the life of deceased as 70 years. It is further stressed by the learned Counsel that the Appellant No. 1, Rajia, was a young lady of 22 years at the time of accident but the Tribunal has awarded only a token amount of Rs. (Sic.) as consortium, which amount is rather too low, keeping in view the age of the widow. Mr. S.C. Srivastava, learned Counsel, appears for Respondent No. 4, United India Insurance Company. He frankly stated that as a matter of right he cannot address the court but with a view to assist the court, he was permitted to address on the point of contributory negligence. The learned Counsel pointed out the site plan to stress that the deceased scooter driver was equally responsible for causing the accident. He further stressed that the regulations 6 and 7 apply as much to the drivers of heavy vehicle as to light vehicles like scooter, car.

4. I have heard both the learned Counsel and also perused the award of the Tribunal and documents and statements of the witnesses. AW 1 Rajia, the widow of the deceased, has stated that the deceased gave her 40 to 45 rupees as his earning per day. AW 3, Sayed Ahmad, is an eye-witness who was on the pillion of the scooter at the time of unfortunate accident. He has stated that the scooter was coming at a speed of 10 to 15 km., a truck came at a high speed of 70-80 km. from the side of Ramgarh Road and suddenly struck the scooter, which resulted in accident. The truck stopped at a distance of 20-22' after causing the accident in which the deceased and infant child were killed on the spot. The deceased and his infant child were dragged to some distance by the truck. The truck came on the wrong side and struck the scooter. He has denied in his cross-examination that the back portion of the truck dragged the scooter. AW 4, Mahmood Yusuf, is witness with whom