Gohil, J. -- 1. This is claimants' appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award passed on 14.7.1998 by 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Guna in Claim Case No. 17/96 for enhancement of compensation.

2. Claimants are the heirs of the deceased. Deceased Shyamveer Singh Sikarwar was driving the motorcycle bearing Registration No. MID 4660 and on 5.12.1994, he was going from Guna to Raghogarh. On the way it is alleged that the said motorcycle dashed with a truck bearing Registration No. DLI/G 3296. It is a case of head on collision. Deceased died on the spot. It was submitted that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. Claim petition was filed and the Tribunal assessed the compensation of Rs.5,84,868/- considering the income and age of the deceased and held that the offending vehicle as well as the deceased both were negligent contributory and reduced the amount awarded by 50%, against which the claimants have filed this appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence and finding. The main question for consideration in this appeal before us is whether it is a case of contributory negligence and whether the deceased as well as the driver of the truck both were responsible for the accident and upto what extent.

4. It is admitted position on record that it is a case of head on collision and the deceased was driving the motorcycle with two pillion riders on the vehicle at the time of the accident. It is pointed out during the course of the arguments that section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides about the safety measures for drivers and pillion riders, according to which no driver of a two-wheeled motorcycle shall carry more than one person in addition to himself on the motor-cycle and no such person shall be carried otherwise than sitting on a proper seat securely fixed to the motorcycle behind the driver's seat with appropriate safety measures. Therefore, it is clear that section 128 bars the riding of more than one pillion rider on the motorcycle. Thus, in this case it can be held that the deceased, who was driving the motorcycle in violation of the provisions of law, has also contributed to the negligence. Now the question is what should be the percentage of the aforesaid negligence. In the case of Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Kumar Singh alias Kamal Singh [2005 (2) TAC 159 (M.P.)] in the similar circumstances this Court apportioned the responsibility at 70:30 between the driver of the bus and motorcyclist respectively. It was a case when the motorcyclist tried to overtake a jeep, an MPSRTC bus came and dashed against him. In this case also the offending truck was coming from the opposite side and dashed the motorcycle. In the similar circumstances in MA 107/01, National Insurance Company v. Smt. Uma Tiwari and others decided on 11.7.2006 we have also considered the ratio of negligence as 70:30 of the driver of the bus and motorcyclist. Therefore, considering the ratio decided in the aforesaid two cases and looking to the facts of this case that there was head on collision between the truck and motorcycle, we are of the opinion that the similar ratio of 70: 30 should be applied in this case, as the facts of the cases are similar. When the deceased himself contributed to the negligence by making breach of law, it cannot be held that he was not liable for any negligence.

5. So far as the question of compensation is concerned, Tribunal recorded a finding that the deceased was working as Sub Engineer and drawing the salary of Rs. 4,302/- per month and thereafter considered the dependency of Rs.2,867/- per month and Rs.34,404/- per year. Looking to the dependents, which are widow, two sons and two daughters between the age group of 7-13 years, we consider that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.4,302/- and he must be spending atleast Rs.3,000/p.m. on his fam