Order : Parth Prateem Sahu, J. 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the award dated 19.11.2018 passed by Learned first Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 37/2009, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of Rs. 3,09,998/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 14.02.2009 Raju Mishra on a motorcycle was returning to his shop from village Risda, at about 10:00 pm. When he reached near new bus stand of village Muktaraja, NH-200, a truck bearing number CG04-G-4291 (henceforth “offending truck”) was parked by its driver-non-applicant No. 2 negligently on the road without any warning indication or turning on indicators of the vehicle, due to which motorcycle of Raju Mishra was dashed with the truck and caused accident. In the said accident, Raju Mishra suffered several grievous injuries over his person. He was taken to Baradwar hospital, from where he was referred to District Hospital, Janjgir-Champa and then to CIMS, Bilaspur. Looking to his non-recovery he was admitted to private nursing home, Vimla Devi Chikitsalaya, Bilaspur. After taking regular treatment for three months, he succumbed to the injuries on 28.05.2019. 3. Appellants-claimants who are parents and sister of deceased Raju Mishra filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 7,80,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was a young boy aged about 20 years, was an able bodied person. Before accident he was running a cloth garment shop and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. 4. Respondent No. 1 & 2 / Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 -owner and driver of the offending truck did not appear before the Claims Tribunal even after service of notice and they were proceeded ex parte. 5. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that the alleged accident occurred due to negligence of deceased himself, the motorcycle of deceased dashed with the offending truck. 5. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that the alleged accident occurred due to negligence of deceased himself, the motorcycle of deceased dashed with the offending truck. On the date of accident, deceased was not possessed with valid and effective driving license. The offending truck was being driven in breach of conditions of insurance policy as the driver of offending truck was not having valid and effective driving license. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased- Raju Mishra died because of grievous injuries suffered by him in the accident caused by colliding with the offending truck, due to its negligent parking on the road by non-applicant No. 1 in front of Bus Stand Muktaraja. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, contributory negligence was found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded Rs. 3,09,998/- as total compensation with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application and fastened liability upon non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company. 7. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in holding the deceased 50% contributory negligent in the accident only relying upon the documents of criminal case. Tribunal has given more weightage to the documents and the statement recorded in the criminal case and not the evidence of witnesses examined in the criminal case. He next contended that the Tribunal erred in not awarding the amount of compensation under the head of loss of future prospects as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and the amount of compensation awarded under the other conventional heads is also on lower side and prays for suitable enhancement of compensation. 8. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants and would submit that the documents of the criminal case are filed by the claimants in support of their claim which has rightly been considered by the Claims Tribunal and upon appreciation of entire evidence available on record came to conclusion that the deceased was also contributory negligent to the extent of 50% and accordingly impugned award was passed deducting 50% amount of compensation so calculated. He submits that the award of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and fair and it does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 10. Claims Tribunal allowing the claim application filed by appellants-claimants computed total compensation of Rs. 6,19,996/- and after deducting 50% towards contributory negligence of the deceased awarded Rs. 3,09,998/- as compensation to the claimants. Liability to satisfy the amount of award is fastened upon non-applicant No. 3-Insurance Company. Neither the insurance company nor the driver and owner of the offending truck have challenged the impugned award. 11. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties on the ground of contributory negligence, I have perused the record of claim case. The accident is dated 14.02.2009 at about 22:00 hours, the report of accident was lodged on the same day at about 23:25 hours. The report was lodged by one H.R. Ratre, employee of the police department. In the F.I.R. it is mentioned that the driver of the truck bearing CG04-G-4291 parked his vehicle on the road and went somewhere, he was searched however he could not be found and police seized the truck on spot. In the claim application, claimants have pleaded that the truck was parked on the road in the night without there being any indication or liting indicators of the truck in a negligent manner. The deceased while driving his motor cycle dashed with the truck parked on the road, negligently. 12. Non-applicant No. 3-Insurance Company submitted reply to the claim application denying the pleadings made with respect to nature of injury and computation of compensation. It was further pleaded that the accident was a result of self negligence of the deceased. The pleadings made with respect to parking of the offending vehicle on the road has not been specifically denied. 12. Non-applicant No. 3-Insurance Company submitted reply to the claim application denying the pleadings made with respect to nature of injury and computation of compensation. It was further pleaded that the accident was a result of self negligence of the deceased. The pleadings made with respect to parking of the offending vehicle on the road has not been specifically denied. Claimants in support of claim application has examined Shri Rajendra Prasad Mishra as AW-1, Shri Pushpendra Chandra a AW-2 and Ramsay Sahu as AW-3. Witness AW-1, Rajendra Prasad Mishra, in his evidence in-chief filed under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC has specifically stated that the offending truck was parked on the road negligently without litting the indicators or putting any indication on the road. The road is a National Highway Road. In cross- examination, the statement made in the evidence in-chief remained unshaken. Similar is the statement made by AW-2, Pushpendra Chandra. This witness is running a Dhaba on the road side near the place of accident. This witness also stated that the truck was parked on the road without taking any precautionary measure by putting reflector or liting indicator in the night about 10:00 pm. This witness denied the suggestion given by the counsel representing the insurance company that the truck was parked on the side of the road. Similar is the statement of AW-3, Ramsay. This witness also denied the suggestion that the truck was parked on the side of the road and further clarified that the truck was parked on the middle of the road. 13. From the aforementioned evidence, it is appearing that the offending truck at the time of accident at about 10:00 pm in the night was parked on the road without putting any indication of warning and indicator lights. Non-applicants, owner, driver or the insurance company have not examined any witness to prove the fact of contributory negligence on the part of deceased also. Non- applicant No. 1 and 2 owner and driver of the offending truck remained absented and were proceeded ex parte. 14. Perusal of order-sheet would show that the non-applicant No. 3-Insurance Company was given several opportunities to produce evidence, however, when non-applicant No. 3 could not able to produce witnesses, counsel representing the Insurance Company gave statement that he does not want to examine any witness and accordingly the opportunity to examine witness of non-applicant No. 3 was closed. 14. Perusal of order-sheet would show that the non-applicant No. 3-Insurance Company was given several opportunities to produce evidence, however, when non-applicant No. 3 could not able to produce witnesses, counsel representing the Insurance Company gave statement that he does not want to examine any witness and accordingly the opportunity to examine witness of non-applicant No. 3 was closed. Claims Tribunal while passing the impugned award considered the statement of witnesses recorded by the police during course of investigation of criminal case and further the statement of Pushpendra Chandra, AW-2 and Ramsay, AW-3, recorded by the police during course of investigation under Section 161 of CrPC and submitted by the claimants as Ext. P-8. Tribunal has also taken note of spot map prepared by the police during investigation and filed along with copy of chargesheet showing the offending truck to have been parked on the side of the road and based on the aforementioned material, Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that there was contributory negligence of the driver of motorcycle. Tribunal has further observed in para-20 of the award that the offending truck was parked on the road in such a manner that it was obstructing movement of traffic. The documents of criminal case prepared by the police during course of investigation cannot be accepted as substantive piece of evidence, it can be used for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction of the makers only. 15. In the case at hand, Insurance Company has not examined the investigating officer or any police official who participated in the investigation. The statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC by the police during investigation is not having evidentary value unless and until the witnesses examined before the Court accept such statement given to the police during course of investigation. It is well settled proposition of law that the evidence recorded in a criminal case and findings arrived therein should not be used in the claim case, but only can be looked into to appreciate other evidence. Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Nanhu Singh vs. Jaheer reported in 2006 ACJ 803 while dealing with the issue whether the documents of criminal case merely by its production will be admissible in evidence and held thus: “ 12 . Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Nanhu Singh vs. Jaheer reported in 2006 ACJ 803 while dealing with the issue whether the documents of criminal case merely by its production will be admissible in evidence and held thus: “ 12 . In view of the aforesaid, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of F.I.R. is incorrect, unsound and in a way paves the path of vitiation. The Tribunal had erred by relying on the F.I.R. as if it was the gospel truth or to put it differently, as if it was comparable to Einsteinean theory. In view of the aforesaid, we are not disposed to concur with the aforesaid finding and accordingly dislodge the same”. 16. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Chamundeswari and others reported in (2021) 18 SCC 596 while considering the issue with regard to admissibility of contents of F.I.R. in evidence before the Tribunal has observed that the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of F.I.R. and held as under: “8. It is clear from the evidence on record of PW 1 as well as PW 3 that the Eicher van which was going in front of the car, had taken a sudden right turn without giving any signal or indicator. The evidence of PW 1 & PW 3 is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal evidence by examining the driver of Eicher van, the High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van. It is to be noted that PW 1 herself travelled in the very car and PW 3, who has given statement before the police, was examined as eyewitness. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the first information report. If any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the first information report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the first information report. 17. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the first information report. If any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the first information report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the first information report. 17. From the aforementioned facts of the case where the non-applicants before the Claims Tribunal have not lead any evidence as also the aforementioned decision of Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Supreme Court, in the opinion of this Court, Claims Tribunal erred in accepting the documents of criminal case as evidence for deciding the claim case. Contributory negligence is fact pleaded by one party and it is to be proved in accordance with law by the party pleading the same. 18. In the case at hand, admittedly non-applicant No. 3-Insurance Company has taken plea of contributory negligence of the deceased also in its reply filed before the Claims Tribunal, however, before the Claims Tribunal non- applicant No. 3 has not examined any witness in support of the said plea taken in their defense. Contributory negligence is a fact which is required to be proved in accordance with law. Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered that the spot map before the Claims Tribunal only would not be sufficient to arrive at a conclusion and could decide the issue of contributory negligence. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jiju Kuruvila and others v. Kunjujamma Mohan and others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 166 , has held thus: “ 20.5 The mere position of the vehicles after accident, as shown in a scene mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and its direction, etc. depends on a number of factors like the speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other, etc. From the scene of the accident, one may suggest or presume the manner in which the accident was caused, but in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver. From the scene of the accident, one may suggest or presume the manner in which the accident was caused, but in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver. In absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the Court cannot give any specific finding about negligence on the part of any individual.” 19. Another judgment of the Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of contributory negligence in the matter of Minu Rout and another v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 695 and held thus: “ 17 . The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, has recorded the erroneous finding by placing strong reliance upon the charge-sheet, Ext. 1 without considering the fact that the criminal case was abated against the deceased and further has made observation in the judgment that the appellants had not produced the FIR. Therefore, it has held that there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased driver in causing accident. The Tribunal ought to have seen that non-production of FIR has no consequence for the reason that charge-sheet was filed against the truck driver for the offences punishable under section 179 read with Section 302 IPC read with the provisions of the MV Act. The Insurance Company, though claimed permission under Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 from the Tribunal to contest the proceedings by availing the defence of the owner of the offending vehicle, it did not choose to examine either the driver of the truck or any other independent eyewitness to prove the allegation of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Susil Rout on account of which the accident took place as he was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner. In the absence of rebuttal evidence adduced on record by the Tribunal, the Tribunal should not have placed reliance on the charge-shhet, Ext. 1 which the deceased driver was mentioned as an accused and on his death his name was deleted from the charge-sheet. The Tribunal has referred to certain stray answers elicited from the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 in their cross-examination and placed reliance on them to record the finding on Issue 1.” 20. 1 which the deceased driver was mentioned as an accused and on his death his name was deleted from the charge-sheet. The Tribunal has referred to certain stray answers elicited from the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 in their cross-examination and placed reliance on them to record the finding on Issue 1.” 20. The person who suffered injury on account of negligent act of other person, cannot be held contributory negligent on the ground that he could have avoided accident, if being more cautious and vigilant. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak and Others , reported in (2002) 6 SCC 455 has observed that where once there is negligence, if one party places another in a situation of danger, which compels that other to act quickly in order to extricate himself, it does not amount to contributory negligence if that other acts in a way, which, with the benefit of hindsight, is shown not to have been the best way out of the difficulty. 21. Considering the aforementioned facts and decisions as referred above, in the opinion of this Court, Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that there was contributory negligence on the part of deceased also, the said finding is without any evidence in this regard and not sustainable which is liable to be and is set aside. 22. Sofar as the ground raised by counsel for appellants-claimants with respect to enhancement of compensation is concerned, deceased on the date of accident was 22 years of age. The monthly income of the deceased on the date of accident is assessed by the Claims Tribunal as Rs. 4500/-. Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of loss of future prospects. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has considered with respect to award of compensation towards future prospects in death case. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the claimant who is not in permanent employment and below the age of 40 years shall be entitled for 40% enhancement of income of deceased as assessed. As the deceased on the date of accident was 22 years old, therefore there shall be 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. It is ordered accordingly. 23. Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, Rs. As the deceased on the date of accident was 22 years old, therefore there shall be 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. It is ordered accordingly. 23. Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, Rs. 40,000/- each to claimant No. 1 and 2 who are parents of deceased. The said compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is to the tune of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 . The deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses, application of multiplier of 18 in the facts of the case are also correctly applied and awarded. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants could not able to point out that the award of compensation under the head of medical expenses has not been considered and awarded as per the bills submitted in this regard. 24. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires recomputation, which is as under. Particulars Compensation A) Annual Loss of income/ dependency = Rs. 54,000/- (Rs. 4500x12) B) Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 40% (Rs. 54,000 x 140% = Rs. 75,600) C) Deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses (Rs. 75,600 x 1/2= Rs. 37,800); D) Multiplier of 18 Rs. 37,800 x 18 = Rs. 6,80,400/- Rs. 6,80,400/- Loss of filial consortium to Appellants No. 1 & 2 (Rs. 40,000 each) Rs. 80,000/- Medical Expenses Rs. 23,996/- Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 8,14,396/- 25. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of Rs. 8,14,396/- instead of Rs. 3,09,998/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount paid to the appellants-claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 26. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.