JUDGMENT 1. These four appeals arise out of one - accident and the claim petitions filed with regard to this accident have been decided by the learned Tribunal by its single award dated 12.6.1984. Therefore, these four appeals arise out of the one and same award, are decided by one common judgment. 2. On 9.4.1979 at about 1.30 a.m. in the midnight deceased Karan Singh along with his friends Satpal Singh and Pushpendra was proceeding from M.I. Road to Sardar Patel Marg on a motor cycle. A truck was proceeding from the side of Government Hostel. Om Prakash was driving the said truck bearing No. HIJ 2296. It is stated that the driver of the truck was driving the same at very fast speed, carelessly and negligently. which resulted in serious accident with the motor cycle driven by Karan Singh. As a result of this accident, Satpal who was sitting on the pillion of the motor cycle died on the spot and Karan Singh was seriously injured and was admitted in S.M.S. Hospital, where he died on 27.4.1979. It is stated that even after the accident the truck could not he stopped and the motor cycle was also dragged by the truck, for considerable distance and it stopped only when it struck an electric pole in the middle of the road. Due to this accident, the motor cycle caught fire and deceased Satpal who was sitting on the pillion was burnt in the fire. This accident took place near the crossing of Chaurah of Sardar Patel Marg never Govt. Hostel. It is also stated that the truck did not blow any horn. As is evident the driver could not stop the truck even after hitting the motor cycle. Legal heirs of deceased Satpal Singh. i.e. his wife Kalpna and others in the claim petition No. 160 of 1979, filed it claim for Rs. 2,05,000/- under different heads stating therein that all the non - applicants are jointly and severally responsible for payment of compensation to them. Legal heirs of deceased Karan Singh, i.e. his wife Santos Kanwar and others in their claim petition No. 159 of 1979 claimed a sum of Rs. 5,04,220/- as compensa on under different heads, stating thereit the non - applicants were jointly and severally responsible for payment of the same. Legal heirs of deceased Karan Singh, i.e. his wife Santos Kanwar and others in their claim petition No. 159 of 1979 claimed a sum of Rs. 5,04,220/- as compensa on under different heads, stating thereit the non - applicants were jointly and severally responsible for payment of the same. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues: 1 vk;k 9-4-79 dh jkr dks djhc 1-30 cts foi{kh ua01 Jh vkse izdk'k us V~d la0 ,p vkbZ ts 2296 dks vR;kf/kd rSth] xQyr o ykijokgh ls pykdj nq?kVZuk fooknLin dkfjr dh ftlds dkj.k Jh lriky flag ,oa dj.k flag dh e`R;q gks xbZA 2. 2 vk;k bl dkj.k izkFkhZx.k foi{khx.k ls 5]04]220@& ,oa 2]05]000 :Ik;s gtkZu ds izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS o gS rks dkSu&dkSu fdl&fdl ls fdruk&fdruk\ 3 lgk;rk D;k gksxh\ "Learned Tribunal after recording the evidence of both the parties decided issue No. I partly in favour of the claimants and partly in favour of the non - applicants and held that the truck driver and the motor cycle driver both were responsible for the accident and, therefore, liable for contributory negligence to the extent of 50% each. In the matter of Santosh Kanwar and others, compensation of Rs. 1,71,600 was awarded, but as deceased Karan Singh, who was driving the motor cycle was also held to he liable for contributory negligence, therefore, only half amount of the award, i.e. Rs. 85,800/- was awarded to them. In the claim petition filed by Kalpna and others, the learned Tribunal held that even though they were entitled to receive Rs. 1,09,600/- as compensation. but on account of contributory negligence of the driver of the motor cycle, 50% amount, i.e. Rs. 54,800/- was awarded to them. All the four appeals have been 'filed 'against the said award as they felt aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same. 3. I have gone through the files and the documents on the record. Learned counsel for the parties have taken me through the statements recorded of the various witnesses, 4. There are two eye - witnesses apart from the driver of the truck, who have deposed about the accident. AW 4 Ghanshyant is an independent eve - witness, who had wooden cabin for sale of food near the crossing of Govt. Hostel. He has stated that he closed his stall at about 12.00 in the night and thereafter went to sleep outside the stall. AW 4 Ghanshyant is an independent eve - witness, who had wooden cabin for sale of food near the crossing of Govt. Hostel. He has stated that he closed his stall at about 12.00 in the night and thereafter went to sleep outside the stall. He got up around 2.30 a.m. due to call of urine and thereafter he was sitting outside his stall to smoke 'bidi'. He stated that at that time a truck came with high speed from the side of M.I. Road in front of Govt. Hostel main gate and was going towards the Ajmer Road Bridge (Apulia). At that time a motor cycle came from the side of Sansar Chandra Road, on which 3 persons were sitting. He has further deposed that when the motor cycle, which was coming in slow speed reached near the crossing of Govt. Hostel, on seeing the truck coming at very fast speed, slowed down the motor cycle by the side of footpath in middle of the road and stopped the same. However the truck came and struck the motor cycle with great force, with the result that two persons were knocked down on the spot and the truck dragged away the motor cycle along with one person and climbed on the footpath in middle of the road and dashed against the electric pole and thereafter stopped. Due to this, the petrol tank of the motor cycle caught fire. He has also stated that the driver of the truck ran away from the spot. Soon after the police came and he informed the police about the above accident. He has also proved F.I.R. (Exh. 65), which was signed by him and the site plan (Exh. 66) prepared by the police, which was also signed by him. In his cross - examination, he has stated that the truck was coming in middle of the road and on seeing the truck the motor cycle stopped towards Saravagi Petrol Pump about 10' ahead of the crossing. He could not see whether engine of the motor cycle was also stopped or not and at that time the truck had not yet crossed the Govt. Hostel crossing. 5. AW 7 Pushpendra Singh is the person, who was sitting on the pillion of the unfortunate motor cycle involved in the accident. He could not see whether engine of the motor cycle was also stopped or not and at that time the truck had not yet crossed the Govt. Hostel crossing. 5. AW 7 Pushpendra Singh is the person, who was sitting on the pillion of the unfortunate motor cycle involved in the accident. He has stated in his deposition that while they were coming on the motor cycle, he was sitting on the pillion, which was driven by his friend deceased Karan Singh. When they reached near the crossing of Govt. Hostel, they found the truck coming at a very high speed from the side of M.I. Road Govt. Hostel, which was going towards Ajmer Road. On seeing the truck coming at a very high speed, Karan Singh tried to stop the motor cycle, but in spite of that, the truck came and struck with gat force with the motor cycle, which resulted in death of Satpal Singh on the spot and Karan Singh died in the hospital due to the injuries sustained by him in this accident. He further deposed that the truck was coining at such a high speed that even after striking the motor cycle the driver could not stop the truck and it dragged the motor cycle along with Satpal and stopped only when it struck the pole on the footpath in the middle of the road, quite a distance away from the place of accident. He has also stated that due to dragging of the motor cycle and striking the same against the electric pole, it caught fire. 6. The third eye - witness is NAW-1 Om Prakash, who was driving the truck at the time of accident. He has stated in his deposition that he was coming from Delhi and was going to Ahmedabad and was driving the truck on the main road and when he had crossed the crossing of Govt. Hostel at a slow speed of 30 km. a motor cycle came at very fast speed of about 60-70 km. and struck behind the truck, which resulted in the accident. He has also stated that the driver of the motor cycle was drunk, and that he was driving the truck at the speed of about 30 km. per hour. 7. Hostel at a slow speed of 30 km. a motor cycle came at very fast speed of about 60-70 km. and struck behind the truck, which resulted in the accident. He has also stated that the driver of the motor cycle was drunk, and that he was driving the truck at the speed of about 30 km. per hour. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants has not opposed the award of the Tribunal, but has opposed the responsibility of contributory negligence fixed up on the deceased Karan Singh and Satpal Singh. He has argued that the plea of contributory negligence was not raised by the opposite parties viz. Hukam Singh, Om Prakash and New India Assurance Company Ltd. In the reply filed by the Assurance Company to the claim petitions, it has been stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor - cyclist, who was completely drunk at that time and that 3 persons were sitting on the motor cycle against the rules. The motor - cyclist tried to cross the crossing of Govt. Hostel before the truck, which resulted in accident. It has also stated that the bigger portion of the truck had already crossed the crossing and the motor cycle came and struck the truck in its back portion. Similar pleas have been raised by the driver of the truck Om Prakash and Hukam Singh also. This shows that no plea of contributory negligence has been raised by them in their replies filed before the Tribunal. Similarly, in his statement, NAW-1 Om Prakash driver of the truck has not stated any where that the accident took place due to contributory negligence of the motor - cyclist. On the contrary, he has stated that after the accident he just ran away from the scene, even though he saw that the motor cycle had caught fire. This shows that the driver of the truck was conscious of his negligence in driving and instead of coming to rescue the victims seriously injured in the accident, thought it fit to run away from the scene of occurrence itself. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,16,000/- as compensation to the claimants of deceased Karan Singh, who was 24 years old at the time of accident. He was earning Rs. 800/- p. m. and it was estimated by the Tribunal that he was spending Rs. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,16,000/- as compensation to the claimants of deceased Karan Singh, who was 24 years old at the time of accident. He was earning Rs. 800/- p. m. and it was estimated by the Tribunal that he was spending Rs. 600/- per month on his family. The Tribunal taking Rs. 600/- to be monthly contribution of deceased Karan Singh to his family, has applied the multiplier of 30 years, which brings the compensation amount to Rs. 2,16,000/- and has thought fit to deduct 20% on account of lump sum payment. The learned Tribunal by another method of calculation for awarding compensation to each of the claimants has come to the conclusion that the total amount awarded to all claimants comes to Rs. 1,71,600/- Tribunal has also come to the conclusion that the motor - cyclist as well as the truck driver were responsible for contributory negligence and has, therefore, deducted 50%, from the total amount of Rs. 1,71,600/- and has awarded Rs. 85,800/- as net compensation to the claimants of deceased Karan Singh. In the case of compensation awarded to the claimants of deceased Satpal Singh, who was 24 years of age at the time of accident, the Tribunal has held that he was earning more than Rs. 600/- per month as L.D.C. and was spending Rs. 400/- on his family. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 29 and has come to the conclusion that the claimants of deceased Satpal, i.e. Kalpna and - others were entitled to Rs. 1,39,200/- by this method and since the amount was given in lump sum, 20% was to be deducted on this account and the net amount payable to them comes to Rs. 1,11,360/- Again by method of awarding separate compensation to each of the claimants, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to receive Rs. 1,09,600/- Learned Tribunal again holding the motor - cyclist as well as the truck driver to be equally responsible for contributory negligence, the amount of 50% was deducted from the awarded amount of Rs. 1,09,601/- and net amount of Rs. 54,800/- was awarded to Kalpna and others in their claim petition. 8. Learned counsel Mr. 1,09,600/- Learned Tribunal again holding the motor - cyclist as well as the truck driver to be equally responsible for contributory negligence, the amount of 50% was deducted from the awarded amount of Rs. 1,09,601/- and net amount of Rs. 54,800/- was awarded to Kalpna and others in their claim petition. 8. Learned counsel Mr. G.C. Mathur has argued that deceased Satpal was not driving the motor cycle, but he was sitting on the,pillion of the same, hence even if the learned Tribunal comes to the conclusion that deceased Karan Singh who was driving the motor cycle was also responsible for contributory negligence, still deceased Satpal Singh cannot be held to be responsible for any contributory negligence as he was not driving the motor cycle. Learned counsel has relied on the case of S.G. Balaji v. General Manager, Karna taka State Road Transport Corporation, 1985 ACJ 150 (Karnataka), in which it was held that the pillion driver had nothing to do with the incident of accident and therefore, no deduction can be, made from the compensation awarded to pillion rider on account of contributory negligence of the persons driving the two vehicles involved in the accident. In this case the claimant was going on the pillion of the Suvega, which was involved in the accident with BTS bus as a result of which the pillion rider as well as driver of Suvega fell down and sustained injuries. Their Lordships of Karnataka High Court in the above case observed that the Tribunal has confused itself without making any distinction between the contributory negligence and composite negligence. Driver of Suvega no doubt contributed towards the cause of accident and to that extent he was liable for the cause of accident. But it is not so with the pillion rider. He has nothing to do with the driving of the Suvega.. So far as he is concerned, the accident is the result of composite negligence both on the part of driver of Suvcga and the driver of the bus and it is well settled law in tort that the injured can proceed against any one of the joint tortfeasors, who are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. It was therefore, held that the Tribunal was not justified in deducting ⅓rd of the total compensation awarded in the case of pillion rider, who had nothing to do with the accident. It was therefore, held that the Tribunal was not justified in deducting ⅓rd of the total compensation awarded in the case of pillion rider, who had nothing to do with the accident. In the case of Andhra Marine Exports (P) Ltd., Quilon v. P. Radhakrishnan, 1984 ACJ 355 (Madras) , their Lordships of Madras High Court held that the passengers travelling in the bus, who sustained injuries cannot be held responsible for contributory negligence because it is a case of composite negligence. In this case, a bus belonging to a transport company and a van belonging to Andhra Marine Export (P) Ltd. were involved in an accident. As a result of the accident, the driver of the bus and another passenger of the bus died on the spot. P. Radhakrishnan sustained injuries and was admitted in the hospital. In the above case, their Lordships of the Madras High Court have observed that when the passenger is injured without any initiation on his part, but as a result of,negligence on the part of other persons or as a result of the combined negligence of two other persons, it is not a case of contributory negligence. The term 'contributory negligence' squarely and solely applies to the conduct of the claimant alone. If the claimant is responsible for an act or omission, which has materially contributed to the accident and the resultant injury and damages, the matter comes within the concept of contributory negligence and the courts are enjoined to apportion the loss between the parties as the facts and circumstances may justify. Since the appellant in the above matter was a passenger simplicitor in the bus he was by no strewth of imagination guilty of any act, which materially contributed to the accident and the resultant. injury and damages. In the case of Devki Devi Tiwari v. Raghunath Sahay Chatrath, 1978 1 CJ 169 (Allahabad) , their Lordships of Allahabad High Court have also held that when two vehicles collided and as a result of which occupant in one of the vehicles dies, the deceased occupant cannot be held to be responsible for contributory negligence as he had not contributed to the negligence and it became the case of composite negligence. Therefore, from the discussion of law cited above, it is clear that deceased Satpal, who was sitting on the pillion of motor cycle cannot be held to be responsible for contributory negligence, if any, and the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 50% from the amount awarded to Kalpna and others, claimants of deceased Satpal. 9. Coming to.the question of contributory negligence of the drivers of the two vehicles involved in the accident, learned counsel for the appellant Santosh Kanwar and others and Kalpna and others has stated that the motor - cyclist cannot be held responsible for any contributory negligence as he had slowed down his motor cycle towards the footpath in the middle of the road dividing it into two parts. In the Xth Schedule of Minor Vehicles Act, which lays down the driving regulations, regulation 6 states that "motor vehicle shall slow down when approaching a road intersection, a road junction or a road corner and shall not enter any such intersection or junction until he has become aware that he may do so without endangering the safety of persons thereon." He has argued that it was the duty of the truck driver to have slowed down at the intersection near Govt. Hostel before speeding to cross the same. He has, therefore. argued that the motor - cyclist cannot be held to be responsible for any contributory negligence and it is the truck driver alone who is responsible for the accident. He has turtticr argued that since the Assurance Company or ether opposite parties in the claim petition have not raised any plea of contributory negligence, they cannot be permitted to raise such objection at the time of arguments. 10. Mr. Bhargava, learned counsel for the Assurance Company and other opposite parties in the claim petition has urged that when the plea of negligence is taken by the opposite parties, it also includes the plea of contributory negligence. It is for the Tribunal then to see whether the claimants are able to prove that the vehicle involved in the accident was driven rashly and negligently by the driver against whom the claim petition has been filed or any other person is also liable for contributory negligence, resulting in the accident. It is for the Tribunal then to see whether the claimants are able to prove that the vehicle involved in the accident was driven rashly and negligently by the driver against whom the claim petition has been filed or any other person is also liable for contributory negligence, resulting in the accident. He has also urged that regulation 7 of Xth Schedule of Driving Regulations lays down "that the driver of a motor vehicle shall, on entering a road intersection, if the road entered is it main road designated as such give way to the vehicles proceeding along that road and in any other case give way to all traffic approaching the inter section on his right hand." therefore he urged that it was the duty of the motor - cyclist to give way to the truck before entering on the road intersection as the truck was coming from the main road and going towards Ajmer Road. 11. From the statement of Ghanshyam (AW 4), who is an independent witness and was present on the spot, it is clear that the motor - cyclist definitely slowed down his vehicle and took the same towards corner - most side of the footpath in middle of the road to permit the truck to pass from intersection of Govt. Hostel. He has also stated that the motor - cyclist was coming at slow speed and that the truck was coming at very high speed and did not slow down at all when approaching intersection at Govt. Hostel. It seems that the motor - cyclist slowed down his motor cycle to such an extent that AW 4 Ghanshyam from little distance followed as if the motor cycle had stopped. 12. A W 7 pushpendra who was sitting on the pillion of the motor cycle has also stated that on seeing the truck coming at very high speed from the side of M. L Road the driver of the motor cycle Karan Singh slowed down the motor cycle and took it to the furthest corner of the road, i.e. towards footpath in middle of the same. It may be stated that driving regulations laid down in Xth Schedule cannot be read separately with each other and regulations 6 and 7 shall have to be read jointly to come to the conclusion as to what are the precautions to be taken by the persons driving the motor vehicles on the public road. There is no doubt that regulation 6 applies to all the persons driving motor vehicle on public road. Therefore, it was also the duty of the driver of the truck to have slowed down his truck when it was approaching intersection of the road near Govt. Hostel, and he should not have entered the same until he became aware that he may do so without any danger to safety of other persons while passing the same at that time. Evidently, the truck driver took no such precaution and continued to drive his vehicle at very fast speed as stated by the eye - witnesses AW 4 and AW 7. 13. So far as regulation 7 is concerned, it is clear that the motor - cyclist with a view to give way to the truck to pass intersection of the road near Govt. Hostel, slowed down the motor cycle and took it to the furthest corner of the road near footpath in middle of the same. But still the truck driver who did not care to slow down the vehicle at all, rashly and negligently drove the same and dragged the motor - cyclist deceased Satpal for some distance and struck the electric pole on the footpath in the middle of the road and thereafter ran away from the scene of incident. It is also possible to believe the statement of the driver Om Prakash when he says that he was driving the truck at the speed of 30 kmph. He has also falsely stated that the persons on the motor cycle were heavily drunk, therefore, no reliance can he placed on the statement of a witness, who makes false allegations to save himself from blame for the accident, which was evidently caused on account of his own rash and negligent driving of the truck. Learned counsel for the opposite parties and Assurance Company has relied upon the case of State e f Punjab v. Roshnai Ram. Learned counsel for the opposite parties and Assurance Company has relied upon the case of State e f Punjab v. Roshnai Ram. 1976 ACJ 5(16 (P&H) ; in which it has been stated that the driver of the car was coming on the main road was within his right. 14. In the case of Deputy General Manager and Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. v. Jyoti Constructions, Mangalore, 1979 ACJ 426 (Karnataka) . it has been held that the duty of the vehicle coming from the by - road to enter the main road is to give way to the vehicle passing on the main road itself. It was held that the driver of the vehicle who was coming from the by - road was entirely negligent and responsible for causing accident. In the case of Nathalal Chhaganlal v. Koli Karsan Latji, 1979 ACJ 212 (Gujarat) . it has been held that because truck driver did not care for the motor - cyclist who had already entered intersection and the truck dashed against the motor cycle, caused injury to the motor - cyclist was solely responsible for the accident and the motor - cyclist was not guilty of contributory negligence at all. In the case of Suhasini Panda v. State of Orissa, 1984 ACJ 276 (Orissa) . a jeep was driven at high speed on a very busy road and the driver of the jeep entered the main road without making sure that no vehicle was approaching it frorp another side and collided with the truck. It was held that driver of the jeep was rash and negligent and solely responsible for the accident. It the case of Distt. Transport Corporation Society Ltd. v. Janek Rani, 1984 ACJ 477 (P&H), an accident took place between bus and scooter. The bus was proceeding on the. main road and dashed with the scooter entering the main road from a side road. The scooter driver did not exercise due care to see that the main road was clear for crossing. It was held that accident was caused solely due to negligence of the scooterist and the finding of negligence recorded by the Tribunal against the bus driver cannot he sustained. 15. The above rulings quoted by Mr. The scooter driver did not exercise due care to see that the main road was clear for crossing. It was held that accident was caused solely due to negligence of the scooterist and the finding of negligence recorded by the Tribunal against the bus driver cannot he sustained. 15. The above rulings quoted by Mr. Bhargava are not of much help to him as the facts of the present case clearly establish that the motorcyclist while entering intersection of the road near the Govt. Hostel slowed down his motor cycle to give way to the truck, which was coming from the side of M.I. Road and going towards Ajmer Road. On the contrary the driver of the truck who did not follow regulation 6 which lays down that before entering intersection at any road, the vehicle should be slowed down to see whether crossing the same will be safe and will not cause any injury to any person while crossing. 16. However, one more undisputed fact shows that there were 3 persons riding on the motor cycle at the time when the accident took place. The motor cycle is meant fore persons and when 3 persons sit on it. it is in itself an act, which shows that the driver of the motor cycle was careless and negligent regarding the safety of the vehicle and the persons sitting on the same. Overloading of any vehicle, more so of a two wheeler is a matter which involves danger to the safety of the persons riding on the same. Therefore, even though the motor - cyclist slowed down his motor cycle, still he was careless and negligent in putting 3 persons on his motor cycle and is, therefore, liable to contributory negligence to some extent. Even though the contributory negligence has not been pleaded by the opposite parties in their pleadings, still the court from the evidence on record can itself draw conclusion regarding this aspect of the matter. In these circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the motor - cyclist slowed down the motor cycle on seeing the truck and the truck did not slow down while entering the intersection. I feel that the motor - cyclist should be held liable for contributory negligence to the extent of 30% and the truck driver to the extent of 70%. 17. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, Mr. I feel that the motor - cyclist should be held liable for contributory negligence to the extent of 30% and the truck driver to the extent of 70%. 17. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, Mr. Bhargava has drawn my attention to the matter of R. S. R. 7. C. v. Bhagwani, 1986 ACJ 369 (Rajasthan) , in which multiplier of 20 was thought fit in the particular circumstances of the case and the amount awarded by the learned single Judge was reduced accordingly. Even though application of 20 years' multiplier cannot be a hard and fast rule in all the circumstances, I feel in the facts and circumstances of this particular case also the multiplier of 20 will meet the ends of justice and award fair compensation to the claimants. I do not find any fault with the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding the fact that Rs. 600/- per month were spent by deceased Karan Singh on his family and Rs. 400/- per month were spent by deceased Satpal Singh on his family. 18. In the case of Karan Singh, 600 x 12 x 20 comes to total compensation amounting to Rs. 1,44,000/- In this case Karan Singh who was driving the motor cycle was liable for contributory negligence to the extent of 30%, therefore, the net compensation payable to his legal representatives, comes to Rs. 1,00,800/- The trend of various High Courts and also of this court, shows that keeping in view the declining value of money, no deduction should be made on account of lump sum payment. I, therefore, hold that the legal representatives of deceased Karan Singh are entitled to get net compensation amounting to Rs. 1,00,800/- Learned Tribunal had awarded the amount of Rs. 85,800/- to them. Now they will be entitled to get balance of Rs. 14,600/- (1,00,400 - 85,800) [Sic.). In addition to what the legal representative of deceased Karan Singh have received, they will he entitled to receive additional amount as under: (1) Santosh Rs. 5,000/- (2) Pratibha Rs. 2,800/- (3) Yashpal Rs. 2,800/- (4) Sajjan Kanwar Rs. 2,000/- (5) Roop Kanwar Rs. 2,000/- Total Rs. 14,600/- "The amount will be paid by cheque or draft account payee only in the name of each claimant. The amount of Kumari Pratibha and Yashpal will be deposited in their accounts by Santosh Kanwar their natural guardian. 19. 5,000/- (2) Pratibha Rs. 2,800/- (3) Yashpal Rs. 2,800/- (4) Sajjan Kanwar Rs. 2,000/- (5) Roop Kanwar Rs. 2,000/- Total Rs. 14,600/- "The amount will be paid by cheque or draft account payee only in the name of each claimant. The amount of Kumari Pratibha and Yashpal will be deposited in their accounts by Santosh Kanwar their natural guardian. 19. In the case of legal representatives of deceased Satpal Singh, the claimants have been paid Rs. 54,800/- as total compensation. Now they will be entitled to receive the amount of Rs. 41,200/- in addition to what they have already been awarded by the learned Tribunal. This amount will be paid to the claimants as mentioned hereunder: (1) Kalpna Rs. 20,000/- (2) Pinki Rs. 15,000/- (3) Bhanwani Singh Rs. 2,200/- (4) Sugan Kanwar Rs. 4,000/- Total Rs. 41,200/- 20. Depositing and utilisation of the money awarded to the minors in respect of legal representatives of both the deceased persons and payment of money awarded to other legal representatives also the conditions laid down by the learned Tribunal will be applicable with regard to the award of additional amount of compensation also. The respondents shall be liable jointly and severally to make the payment. The assurance company shall be liable to make payment to the extent of its statutory liability. If the payment is not made within 3 months, the claimants shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% on the amount from the date of application till realisation.Order accordingly. *******