JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - These three appeals have been preferred u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the decision of the District Judge of Puri-Cum-Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sambalpur awarding compensation of Rs. 93,072/- in favour of Respondents 1 to 5. 2. Late Nilakantha Mishra (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was working as the Sub-Divisional Officer, Electrical in the General Electrical Division No. 11, P.W.D., Orissa at Sambalpur. He was aged 46 years. His life came to an abrupt end on 18-10-72 while he was travelling by a Government jeep on official duty from Sambalpur to Deogarh. The jeep was moving from west to east on the Sambalpur-Deogarh road. A truck which was heavily loaded and was moving from east to west dashed against the jeep near mile stone No. 258/1 which is about 2 kilometres east towards from Jamakira crossing. There was a culvert near the place of accident and the width of the road is about 22 feet. There is a curve a little ahead of the culvert. The collision took place while the two vehicles were passing each other near the culvert It was alleged that both the vehicles were running at a high speed. Before the accident, horn was not sounded by the drivers of both the vehicles. According to the claimants, the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. As a result of the collision the jeep was pushed to its rear to a considerable distance and it fell on the road side nala. The deceased who was sitting on the front seat of the jeep was thrown out of the vehicle and was run over by the truck. He succumbed to the injuries instantaneously at the spot. The jeep was badly damaged and its driver and the occupants were seriously injured. 3. The State of Orissa, the Appellant in Misc. Appeal No. 44 of 1977, filed counter resisting the claim of compensation. It was alleged that the jeep was being driven at the normal speed but the truck was being driven rashly and negligently. It was also alleged that there was absolutely no negligence on the part of the jeep driver and hence the State of Orissa was not liable to pay any compensation. It was alleged that the jeep was being driven at the normal speed but the truck was being driven rashly and negligently. It was also alleged that there was absolutely no negligence on the part of the jeep driver and hence the State of Orissa was not liable to pay any compensation. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., with which the truck was insured, filed counter contending that the truck in question was insured in favour of Karunakar Pradhan, the Managing Partner of Telkoi Traders' Association and as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy the insurance company was to indemnify the insured and none else. The said Telkoi Traders' Association was dissolved on or about 27.7.72 and the liability of the insurer ceased from that date. It was alleged that the insured Karunakar Pradhan had sold the truck to one Natabar Biswal and there was no contract of insurance between the insurance company and the said Natabar Biswal. 4. Karunakar Pradhan, the Appellant in Misc. Appeal No. 18 of 1977 contended that he had already sold away the truck in question on 21.1.12 to Natabar Biswal and as such he was in no way responsible for the accident and the claim against him is untenable. 5. The said Natabar Biswal who was subsequently made a party to the proceeding contended that Karunakar Pradhan was the owner of the truck at the time of the accident and that the ownership of the truck was transferred to him only on 24.1.73 and as such he was not liable for any compensation. 6. Three witnesses were examined on the side of the claimants and one witness on the side of the opposite parties. On a consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal came to the finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. It however apportioned the negligence between the truck driver and the jeep driver in the ratio 75: 25. On the question of compensation, it held that the deceased would have normally lived up to the age of 65 years; that during his period of service he would have earned a monthly income of Rs. 900/- on an average and after retirement till his death he would have earned Rs. 416/- per month as pension with dearness allowance. On the question of compensation, it held that the deceased would have normally lived up to the age of 65 years; that during his period of service he would have earned a monthly income of Rs. 900/- on an average and after retirement till his death he would have earned Rs. 416/- per month as pension with dearness allowance. Accordingly, it held that the total contribution of the deceased for the support of his family for the remaining period of 12 years of his service would have come to Rs. 75,600/- and during the period of seven year after superannuation he would have contributed Rs. 17,472/-. Thus the total contribution for the support of the family during the rest of his life was estimated at Rs. 93,072/-. Accordingly the Tribunal directed the State of Orissa to pay Rs. 23,268/-, the insurance company to pay Rs. 50.000/- and Karunakar Pradhan, the truck owner, to pay Rs. 19,804/- out of the total amount of compensation. It held that the truck was actually sold by Karunakar Pradhan to Natabar Biswal on 14-1-73 and hence the former was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident and was liable to pay the compensation. 7. On appeal, the following contentions were advanced on behalf of the Appellants: (1) The Tribunal has not properly apportioned the negligence of the drivers of the two vehicles. (2) The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. (3) The amount of compensation awarded is high and excessive. 8. On a review of the evidence on the record it appears that both the vehicles were trying to pass each other at a point where the road is narrow. They were moving at a speed at which the drivers were unable to exercise full control over their vehicles. The drivers did not also sound horn. It is because of this that the accident occurred. If one of them had been careful, the unfortunate incident would not have occurred. The only reasonable conclusion which can be arrived at on the evidence is that the drivers of both the vehicles were negligent. I would, therefore, agree with the Tribunal that the deceased died as a result of the accident which occurred due to the negligence in driving both the vehicles. The drivers of both the vehicles are, therefore, responsible for the occurrence. 9. I would, therefore, agree with the Tribunal that the deceased died as a result of the accident which occurred due to the negligence in driving both the vehicles. The drivers of both the vehicles are, therefore, responsible for the occurrence. 9. There was no justification for the Tribunal to apportion the liability between the owners of the vehicles in the ratio 75:25. The accident occurred as a result of the combined effect of the negligence of the drivers of both vehicles and without an negligence on the part of the deceased. The drivers of both the vehicles are joint tortfeasors and they are liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. In the case of Parsani Devi Vs. The State of Haryana and Others, : a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows: ...It is, therefore, held that both the drivers being composite or joint tortfeasors, the liability of payment of the compensation by the State of Haryana as the owner of the bus extends to the whole of the amount that maybe awarded, it being left open to the State of Haryana to seek such contribution from such persons as it may deem fit. In the case of The United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Mst. Sayar Kanwar and Others, a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held as follows: Upon a consideration of the matter, it seems to us that where the negligence of the claimant injured or the deceased also contributes to the happening of the accident the amount of compensation that the Respondent will be required to pay shall be in proportion to the volume of his fault or negligence, but where a person is injured or dies in an accident which occurs not on account of his negligence but because the drivers of the colliding vehicles were negligent, the claimants are entitled to damages jointly and severally from the negligent Respondents. In that event, it is no concern of the Tribunal to apportion the damages between them.... In a recent decision of this Court in the case of Golak Chandra Das Vs. Kousalya Nayak and Others, : Hon'ble Mr. In that event, it is no concern of the Tribunal to apportion the damages between them.... In a recent decision of this Court in the case of Golak Chandra Das Vs. Kousalya Nayak and Others, : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.N. Misra relied on the aforesaid decisions and, on a review of the authorities, held as follows: ...The facts clearly indicate that it is a case of joint tort-feasance and both the drivers are responsible for the occurrence. It would, therefore, follow that it is a case of composite negligence and the compensation is, therefore, payable jointly and severally by the joint tortfeasors. Accordingly, there was no justification for the Tribunal to apportion the compensation fixing the liability of the jeep owner to the tune of three-fourths and the bus owner to the tune of the remainder. Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act has no application to the facts of this case and relying on that provision it was not open to the Tribunal to make any statutory apportionment. On the other hand, it would be appropriate to hold the owners of the bus and the jeep to be jointly liable for the total compensation. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by my learned brother. I would modify the order of the Tribunal and direct that the compensation to be awarded in this case would be payable jointly and severally by the owners of both the vehicles. 10. It is urged on behalf of the Appellant in Misc. Appeal No. 18 of 1977 that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim proceeding as the accident occurred outside its jurisdiction and no transfer of the case is envisaged by law. It is, no doubt, true that the occurrence took place within the jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sambalpur and the claim proceeding was originally instituted before that Tribunal. But by virtue of a notification dated the 6th June, 1973, issued by the State Government in the Works and Transport (Transport) Department, the District Judge of Puri was appointed as an Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for the district of Sambalpur and the claim proceeding was transferred from the file of the District Judge, Sambalpur to that of the District Judge, Puri for disposal. The notification is in the following terms: S.RO. The notification is in the following terms: S.RO. No. 5f 1/73?In pursuance of Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939) and in partial modification of the notification of the Government of Orissa in the Transport Department No. 3411-T. R-4-58-T.. dated the 4th June, 1958, the State Government do hereby appoint the District Judge, Puri to be the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for the district of Sambalpur for the purpose of adjudicating the claim of Shrimati Sarojini Mishra for compensation in Misc. case No. 13/73, pending in the file of the District Judge, Sambalpur and direct that the said case shall be transfer red from the file of the District Judge, Sambalpur to the file of the District Judge, Puri for trial and disposal. The relevant provisions of Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act are reproduced below: 110(1). A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereinafter referred to as Claims Tribunals) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles.... (4) Where two or more Claims Tribunals are constituted for any area, the State Government may, by general or special order, regulate the distribution of business among them. It would appear from the above provisions that where two or more Claims Tribunals are constituted for an area, the State Government is empowered under Sub-section (4) of Section 110 to regulate the distribution of business among them by a general or special order. A Tribunal can try only such cases as the State Government may by a general or special order make over to it for disposal. In the present case, the State Government issued a combined notification constituting an Additional Claims Tribunal for Sambalpur and transferring a case to it for disposal. The District Judge of Puri exercised his jurisdiction by virtue of his appointment as the Additional Claims Tribunal of Sambalpur and disposed of the claim proceeding which had been transferred to him from the file of the District Judge-Cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sambalpur. It is. therefore, idle to contend that he had no jurisdiction to dispose of the claim proceeding. The District Judge of Puri exercised his jurisdiction by virtue of his appointment as the Additional Claims Tribunal of Sambalpur and disposed of the claim proceeding which had been transferred to him from the file of the District Judge-Cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sambalpur. It is. therefore, idle to contend that he had no jurisdiction to dispose of the claim proceeding. The contention raised on behalf of the Appellants is devoid of any force. 11. Now the next question for consideration is about the quantum of compensation. The deceased was 46 years old at the time of his death. According to the claimants, he was drawing a basic salary of Rs. 520/- per month in the scale of Rs. 300-25-400-E.B. 30-520-E.B. 35-660-40-780/-besides the dearness allowance of Rs. 120/-and the additional dearness allowance of Rs. 32/- per month. Ordinarily, he would have been entitled to draw higher salary in the revised scale of pay of Rs. 525-25-650-E.B-40-850-E.B.-50-1150/- which came into force with effect from 1-1-1974. He had still a period of 12 years of service and had a future prospect of promotion to the rank of an Executive Engineer in the scale of pay of Rs. 1000-50- 1250-E.B.-70-1530/-. Considering the incremental pay and the prospects of promotion during the period of his service, the Tribunal estimated the monthly average income at Rs. 900/-. I see no cogent ground to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the deceased would normally have lived up to the age of at least 65. During the period of seven years after retirement from service until death he would have been entitled to enjoy pension with dearness allowance which the Tribunal estimated at Rs 416/- per month. Considering the size and standard of living of the family of the deceased and the deduction from salary towards income tax, house rent etc., the Tribunal held that the deceased would have contributed two-thirds of his income for the support of the family during the period of his service and one-third of the income for the maintenance of his wife during the period of seven years after retirement until death. Accordingly, the total contribution of the deceased for the support of the family during the remaining period of his life which he was expected to live but for the accident was estimated at Rs. 93,072/-. Accordingly, the total contribution of the deceased for the support of the family during the remaining period of his life which he was expected to live but for the accident was estimated at Rs. 93,072/-. The Tribunal did not, however, deduct one-sixth of the amount which is ordinarily done for uncertainty of life and lump sum payment of compensation. The ground taken by the Tribunal for not allowing the deduction is that although the death occurred on 18-10-72 nothing has yet been paid to the claimants towards compensation. Considering the normal hazards of life, the lump-sum payment of compensation and the facts that the claimants are enjoying family pension and interest on the compensation has been awarded from the date of application, the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal should be discounted by one-sixth. After such deduction, the amount works out at Rs. 77,560/-. 12. In the result, the appeals are allowed in part. The Respondents 1 to 5 are entitled to compensation of Rs. 77,560/-only with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of application until realisation payable by Karunakar Pradhan, the Appellant in. Misc. Appeal No. 18 of 1977 and the State of Orissa, the Appellant in Misc. Appeal No. 44 of 1977 jointly and severally. The liability of the insurer, the Appellant in Misc. Appeal No. 56 of 1977 is limited to Rs. 50,000/-. Respondents 1 to 5 are entitled to the costs of the claim proceeding proportionate to their success. Parties to bear their own costs incurred in this Court. Final Result : Allowed