JUDGMENT : K.C. Agrawal, J.—This is an appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Azamgarh, dated 30th October, 1978, awarding Rs. 1,00,000/- with costs and pendente lite interest at the rate of 6 per cent to the Respondents. The details of the compensation given to the Respondents are given below: (1) Bittan Devi... Rs. 5,000/- (2) Pradeep Kumar... Rs. 7,000/- (3) Ashok Kumar... Rs. 7,000/- (4) Daleep Kumar... Rs. 9,000/- (5) Vinai Kumar... Rs. 9,000/- (6) Dinesh Kumar... Rs. 9,000/- (7) Vinod Kumar... Rs. 11,250/- (8) Suresh Kumar... Rs. 9,000/- (9) Anil Kumar... Rs. 11,250/- (10) Jitendra Kumar... Rs. 11,250/- (11) Rajendra Kumar... Rs. 11,250/- Total Rs. 1,00,000/- 2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal directed that the amounts payable to the minors would be given to Bittan Devi, Respondent No. 1, who was their natural guardian. 3. Bittan Devi, Respondent No. 1, who was the widow of the deceased Lal Ji, filed the claim petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act on 10th January, 1977 for compensation for the death of aforesaid Lal Ji which took place on 31st August, 1976 at 1 a.m. in the night while he was travelling by bus No. UTA 1907 belonging to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The accident occurred while the bus was one furlong east of the Bardah Bazar, P.S. Bardah, district Azamgarh on Azamgarh-Jaunpur road and was going towards Jaunpur. The bus first collided with a truck and, thereafter, with a sheesham tree purely due to the negligence of the bus driver. As a result of the impact, the deceased Lal Ji who was one of the passengers received serious injuries. He was taken to the District Hospital, Jaunpur but he was declared dead. His injuries were noted by the Medical Officer. 4. Lal Ji deceased had left behind Bittan Devi as his widow and Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 as his sons. It was alleged in the claim petition that on account of the death of Lal Ji, Respondent Nos. 1 to 11 suffered mental shock as well as financial and pecuniary loss. The Respondents, therefore, were entitled to get compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-for the said purpose. 5. 2 to 11 as his sons. It was alleged in the claim petition that on account of the death of Lal Ji, Respondent Nos. 1 to 11 suffered mental shock as well as financial and pecuniary loss. The Respondents, therefore, were entitled to get compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-for the said purpose. 5. The application was contested by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') and the ground that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus was denied. The Corporation alleged that the Respondents had no cause of action and right to sue. According to the Corporation, on 31st August, 1976, the bus was going from Gorakhpur to Allahabad in the night. While it was approaching Bardah, a truck, coming from Jaunpur at a very high speed, dashed against the right side of the bus. It was claimed that the bus was at low speed and was on its left side. The bus driver, according to the Corporation, tried to save the passengers but in doing so it dashed against the sheesham tree causing injuries to the deceased Lal Ji, who later succumbed to them in the hospital. The Corporation claimed that the driver was vigilant and, as such, the Corporation could not be held liable for the negligence. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed the following three issues: (1) Whether the Petitioners are the heirs and dependents of Lai Ji deceased and are entitled to compensation? (2) Whether Lal Ji deceased died as a result of the accident with the truck specified in the petition and whether the Petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, how much? (3) To what amount or relief, if any, are the Petitioners entitled? 7. On issue No. 1 the finding of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was that Respondent Nos. 1 to 11 were the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased Lal Ji and, as such, were entitled to maintain the application for compensation. Taking up issue Nos. 2 and 3 together, the Claims Tribunal considered the statements of the witnesses produced by the two sides and came to the conclusion that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the bus and, therefore, the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation was liable to pay the compensation. Taking up issue Nos. 2 and 3 together, the Claims Tribunal considered the statements of the witnesses produced by the two sides and came to the conclusion that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the bus and, therefore, the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation was liable to pay the compensation. On the findings given on these issues, the Claims Tribunal decreed the claim and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Aggrieved, the Corporation has filed this appeal. 8. Amongst the witnesses produced on behalf of the Respondents, those who are material are PW 2 Shiv Shanker and PW 5 Murli. Both of them were travelling in the same bus which met the accident. Murli was a witness named in the charge-sheet, which indicates that his presence in the bus, when the accident took place, is conclusively established. He says that the bus was being driven at a very high speed and that he and other passengers had persistently asked the driver to lower the speed. He also says that at some distance before P.S. Bardah, a truck came running from Jaunpur side and dashed against the bus. The bus thereafter collided with a sheesham tree causing a big noise. Shiv Shanker PW 2 has proved the facts stated in the claim petition. He also stated that the accident took place due to the negligence of the bus driver. The statements of these two witnesses are corroborated by the statement of the deceased Lal Ji which was recorded by the police at P.S. Bardah on 31st August, 1976 in the night soon after the accident. He also stated that the bus was being driven by the driver at a high speed despite the protest of the passengers sitting in the bus. The driver did not heed to their request. He estimated the speed of the bus to be 80 to 90 km. per hour. 9. On behalf of the Corporation to say that the accident did not take place due to the negligence of the driver but due to that of the truck, the witnesses produced were DW 1 Ram Nihor and DW2 Parasnath. Ram Nihor stated that he was travelling in the bus and its speed was very moderate. per hour. 9. On behalf of the Corporation to say that the accident did not take place due to the negligence of the driver but due to that of the truck, the witnesses produced were DW 1 Ram Nihor and DW2 Parasnath. Ram Nihor stated that he was travelling in the bus and its speed was very moderate. He admitted in the cross-examination that he did not receive any summons but he came to depose in the case as he knew the conductor of the bus from before. His statement was not accepted by the Claims Tribunal with the finding that the same was not truthful and had been given under the influence of Rama Shanker Singh, who was the conductor of the bus. We are of the same view as was taken by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. He appears to us to be an interested person having come in the witness box to depose at the instance of Rama Shanker Singh. 10. So far as Parasnath DW 2 is concerned, he says that no summons were sent to him. He appeared in the court to make the statement in pursuance of the message sent by Rama Shanker Singh, the conductor of the bus to depose about it. He was a biased witness and, as such, was rightly rejected by the Claims Tribunal. His statement was further contradicted by the first information report which was filed soon after the accident. 11. From the discussions made above, we are satisfied that the Claims Tribunal correctly held that the accident took place due to the rashness of the bus driver. 12. Counsel for the Corporation argued that the accident was the result of the composite negligence of the truck driver and the driver of the bus. The submission of Respondent No. 1 appears to us to be correct. The accident took place in the dead of the night at 1 a.m. when the general tendency is to run the vehicle at a fast speed. Sometimes the speed is even beyond the control of the driver of the vehicle inasmuch as the road at the time is clear and there being no rush either of vehicles or of traffic and pedestrians. Exh. Sometimes the speed is even beyond the control of the driver of the vehicle inasmuch as the road at the time is clear and there being no rush either of vehicles or of traffic and pedestrians. Exh. I which is the copy of the photographs taken by Surendra Kumar PW 4 shows that as a result of the impact of the truck the bus had collided with the sheesham tree. The witnesses produced by the Respondents also stated that not only the bus was being driven at a high speed but also the truck came at a speed more than that of the bus and dashed against it after hitting the door on the right and passed away. The statements of the witnesses of the Respondents on the point of speed of the truck being higher are supported further from the circumstances and the first information report. When the accident occurs and the injuries flow without any negligence on the part of the claimant, but as a result of the negligence on the part of the two persons, it is case which is described as a case of composite negligence. 13. From what we have said above, we find that the accident was due to the composite negligence of both the drivers, i.e., the bus and the truck. As to what is composite negligence is defined in Andhra Marine Exports (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. P. Radhakrishnan and Others, , held: Where negligent acts of two or more independent persons have between them caused damage to a third, the sufferer is not driven to apply any such analysis to find out whom he can sue. He is entitled, of course, within the limits set out by the general rules as to remoteness of damage to sue all or any one of the negligent persons. It is no concern of his whether there is any duty of contribution or indemnity as between these persons though in any case he cannot recover on the whole more than his whole damage. 14. Since this was a case of composite negligence the Respondents had a right under the law to sue the Corporation for the compensation for what had been suffered by them. The liability of the truck and the bus was joint and several. This being the position, the Respondents could choose either of the two or prefer claim against both. 14. Since this was a case of composite negligence the Respondents had a right under the law to sue the Corporation for the compensation for what had been suffered by them. The liability of the truck and the bus was joint and several. This being the position, the Respondents could choose either of the two or prefer claim against both. In this view of the matter, although we have differed from the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the accident took place due to the sole negligence of the bus driver but that does not make out any case to reverse its judgment. The accident even if was due to the negligence of both, the liability of the Corporation would not vanish, extinguish or diminish. 15. Mr. S.K. Sharma, counsel for the Appellants, urged that since the truck could avoid the accident by resorting to the principle of Mast opportunity' the Corporation could be held not liable to the compensation or damages for which the claim petition had been filed by the Respondents. Reliance on the rule of 'last opportunity' by the counsel for the Appellants is misplaced. This rule of last opportunity' applies to the cases of contributory negligence. Contributory negligence is conducted on the part of the claimants, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection. In cases of contributory negligence, where it is found that if the Plaintiff had the Mast opportunity' of avoiding its claim, he would not be entitled to get compensation, does not apply in the present case, inasmuch as the deceased Lal Ji was a passenger of the bus which met with the accident and he was not guilty of any negligence which contributed to the accident. As such the reliance placed by the Appellants' counsel on the rule of Mast opportunity' and avoiding responsibility on its basis is unacceptable to us. Even this so-called rule gives in to the difficulty, as in truth the question is not who had last opportunity of avoiding the mischief but whose act caused the wrong. 16. Coming to the question of quantum of damages, we have referred to above that the Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- to the dependents of the deceased Lal Ji. Even this so-called rule gives in to the difficulty, as in truth the question is not who had last opportunity of avoiding the mischief but whose act caused the wrong. 16. Coming to the question of quantum of damages, we have referred to above that the Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- to the dependents of the deceased Lal Ji. Computation of amount of compensation should be an attempt of reinstatement in terms of money to the loss suffered by the family of the victim of the motor accident. This includes the personal loss and also the material loss to which the family is deprived. 17. Lal Ji, the deceased, had a licence for the sale of manure. On his death, the licence was given to Ashok Kumar. Lal ji, according to the statement of Ashok Kumar, was earning Rs. 650/- per month. On taking over the business, he stated that he was contributing Rs. 500/- to his family. 18. The only source of income of the deceased Lal Ji was the business of sale of manure which he ran under the licence obtained by him. There was no other source of income in the family. This business was taken over by Ashok Kumar and as such, the family was not completely and wholly deprived of the source of income with which the expenses were to be made. The question that is required to be considered is about the effect on the determination of the quantum of compensation when the son Ashok Kumar had taken over the business. There is no direct evidence of the amount by which the total earning had diminished or had been reduced due to the death of Lal Ji. It, however, appears to us that Lal Ji was an experienced businessman whereas Ashok Kumar since was only 22 years of age, he was inexperienced in business and naturally, therefore, he must not have been making the same income which his father was getting from the business. Taking this fact into consideration, we find that the business must have been reduced and the figure of reduction can be near about Rs. 250/- per month. The multiple applied in the present case was that of 20 years on the finding that the age of the deceased was 45 years and he could be expected to remain alive upto 65 years. 250/- per month. The multiple applied in the present case was that of 20 years on the finding that the age of the deceased was 45 years and he could be expected to remain alive upto 65 years. Nothing could be suggested on behalf of either of the two parties that this multiple was erroneous. Having thus found that the income had gone down by Rs. 250/- per month, we find that the family had suffered to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- 19. In Om Prakash and Another Vs. Smt. Rukmini Devi and Others, , where the deceased was a partner in a firm and on his death his heirs continued business, this Court held that as business had not been adversely affected, sons were not entitled to any compensation on that score. This decision supports us on the view that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal erroneously awarded the compensation. 20. Over and above Rs. 60,000/-, the Respondents are further entitled to damages on account of shock and suffering which on seeing the ages of the children of the deceased and after having kept into account the age of his young widow, we are of opinion that Rs. 20,000/- may be awarded to all of them in lump sum towards this. Consequently, the total amount to which these persons were entitled to compensation comes to Rs. 80,000/-. Out of this amount 16 per cent may be deducted towards the lump sum payment of the compensation which would come to Rs. 12,800/-. The total amount of compensation now payable would be Rs. 67,200/-. They would further be entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. Since we do not consider it necessary to fix the quantum of compensation and damages in respect of each of the claimants separately, we have not done so. 21. For the reasons given above, the appeal partly succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is modified to the extent stated above. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.