MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS group of appeals and cross-objections arise out of the motor accident involving two trucks which collided at cross-roads. The accident occurred on 8-2-1983 at about 8-00 a. m. One truck bearing registration No. GTF 2329 (hereinafter referred to as the gtf truck) was going from Nadiad towards Petlad side, i. e. , from north to south and another truck CPM 7727 (hereinafter referred to as cpm truck) was going from Sojitra to Anand side, i. e. , from west to east. The accident took place at Bandhani Chokdi. As a result of this accident, 17 persons lost their lives and 20 persons were injured and, therefore, there are 37 claim cases and there is one claim case for damages with respect to CPM truck against the driver, owner and insurer of GTF truck. In all, there are 38 claim petitions. Out of 37 dead and injured persons, 35 persons were travelling in the GTF truck and two persons were on the road. One of them died and one received injuries. GTF truck was insured by New india Assurance Co. Ltd. and CPM truck was insured by National Insurance co. Ltd. The Tribunal held that both the drivers were equally negligent and their negligence was apportioned 50% each. New India Assurance Co. has filed 30 appeals out of which seven have been dismissed on the ground of smallness of the claim. The National Insurance Co. has filed 31 appeals and ten of them have been dismissed on the ground of smallness of claim. In the appeals filed by New India Assurance Co. , claimants have filed crossobjections for enhancement of compensation. ( 2 ) IN the set of appeals filed by the Insurance Companies, the main question is, regarding negligence. The claimants have also taken the same stand on the question of negligence as that of insurance companies. It is the contention that the other truck was solely negligent. ( 3 ) MR. Ajay H. Mehta, learned Counsel for the New India Assuarance co. and Mr. J. M. Patel for the respondents (claimants) have submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver of the GTF truck was also negligent. In their submission, the driver of CPM truck was solely negligent. They have submitted that from the panchnama Ex. 53 and photographs of the trucks taken after the accident at Exh. and Mr. J. M. Patel for the respondents (claimants) have submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver of the GTF truck was also negligent. In their submission, the driver of CPM truck was solely negligent. They have submitted that from the panchnama Ex. 53 and photographs of the trucks taken after the accident at Exh. 152, 155, 156, 161 and 162, it is clearly shown that the driver of CPM truck alone is negligent and this contention is also said to be fortified and supported by the oral evidence of the claimants and witnesses. They are at Exh. 30, 62, 63, 83, 117 and 143. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, Mr. B. R. Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the insurer of CPM truck has submitted the having regard to the facts and circumstances, the sole negligence is that of the driver of GTF truck. ( 5 ) THE claimants have submitted that both the truck drivers were driving their vehicles negligently and, therefore, both the trucks have collided in the middle of the crossing. Written Statement at Ex. 16 filed by the owner of GTF truck contends that the driver of CPM truck was driving the truck negligently and at inter-section of the crossing, driving the truck on the wrong side, CPM truck collided with the GTF truck. New India Assurance Co. has filed a separate written statement at Ex. 19 and it is submitted that the driver of GTF truck was not negligent and it is the driver of CPM truck who was negligent. ( 6 ) UNITED India Assurance Co. have filed their written statement dated 19-2-1983 at Ex. 165. In para 11 of their written statement, they have denied any negligence on the part of CPM truck and it is contended that when the said truck No. CPM 7727 crossed nearly 2/3rd near the Bandhani Chokdi, the driver of GTF truck suddenly came from left side at a very high speed and rashly and negligently and contrary to the driving regulations entered the said chorha and dashed with CPM truck. There was no fault or negligence on the part of driver of CPM truck and the said accident took place only due to gross negligence and carelessness of the driver of GTF truck. 6a. Thus, the rival versions are diametrically opposed to each other. There was no fault or negligence on the part of driver of CPM truck and the said accident took place only due to gross negligence and carelessness of the driver of GTF truck. 6a. Thus, the rival versions are diametrically opposed to each other. The version of CPM truck owner and insurer is that the CPM truck had crossed nearly 2/3rd of the Bandhani Chokdi and GTF truck suddenly came from the left side and dashed with CPM truck whereas the contention of GTF truck owner and insurer is that CPM truck had dashed against GTF truck. In view of the facts and circumstances of these two rival contentions, the physical facts and circumstances will have to be ascertained from the panchanama and the evidence of witnesses. 6b. The panchnama Ex. 53 shows the position of two trucks after the accident. At the cross-road on the North side, there is a bus stand and on the Southern side at about 67 feet from the bus stand, there is a guard-stone and 10. 5 feet away from the guard-stone, there is a babul tree. On the west of this guard-stone, rear part of CPM truck is lying on its left side and right side is skyward. Its front portion is broken. 45-4" South to this truck, there is a chokdi and a guard-stone and beyond that, there is a field of Gokalbhai hirabhai. GTF truck is 44-8" away from CPM truck on the Southern side and GTF truck is turned turtle and all its wheels are facing sky. About 28 feet beyond this truck is a pit in which acid containers and dead bodies are lying. CPM truck was proceeding from Tarapur to Anand, and its wheel marks due to application of brakes by the driver are seen for 34 feet. They are in a curve. The front portion of GTF truck is at a distance of 35-1" from the guard-stone on the road towards Petlad. The engine, body and cabin portion of the CPM truck has been reduced to scrap. Its buffer is smashed and roof of the cabin is thrown away. 17 boxes are lying outside. The iron sheets of the body of the truck and machine parts are also lying outside. The left front wheel of GTF truck got separated and was lying 18 feet away. The truck is overturned and the goods are lying scattered. Its buffer is smashed and roof of the cabin is thrown away. 17 boxes are lying outside. The iron sheets of the body of the truck and machine parts are also lying outside. The left front wheel of GTF truck got separated and was lying 18 feet away. The truck is overturned and the goods are lying scattered. The glass pieces of the front glass are also lying. Acid containers, soda bags and containers of chemicals are also lying. Acid is spread on the road side and at that place, there are blood marks in an area of about 1. 5 feet diameter. The household goods and beddings of the labourers are also found scattered. ( 7 ) FROM the aforesaid panchnama, the following facts emerge :- (i) Nothing is found in the inter-section which is of 60 feet x 60 feet. (ii) GTF truck which was proceeding from North to South is found on its correct side. (Its left side ). (iii) CPM truck which was proceeding from West to East is found on its wrong side. Both these trucks are found outside South east corner of the inter-section. (iv) The front side of CPM is completely destroyed. The front side of gtf truck is intact. (v) CPM truck has left brake marks of 34 feet and even after the accident, it has proceeded further and is found on the wrong side of the road and is lying on the wrong side of the road. The above facts are also seen from the photographs at Exh. 154, 155, 156 (GTF truck) and 165, 166 (CPM truck ). The photographs of CPM truck clearly show that its front side is completely smashed. Even the glasses of the head light are broken. Roof of the cabin and the glass panels are broken and glass pieces are lying there. The damage to the GTF truck is on the rear part of the body of the truck. ( 8 ) MR. Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the owner and insurer of CPM truck submitted that the CPM truck driver had taken care to apply brakes and brake marks would be seen from the panchnama. The damage to the GTF truck is on the rear part of the body of the truck. ( 8 ) MR. Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the owner and insurer of CPM truck submitted that the CPM truck driver had taken care to apply brakes and brake marks would be seen from the panchnama. As against that, GTF truck had not taken care to apply brake and it had suddenly entered the intersection from the left side in breach of Rules 6 and 7 of the Schedule and the driver of GTF truck was totally negligent of the fact that CPM truck was coming from its right side and had of a right of way and that the said truck was containing dangerous substance like acid and was loaded with about 35 passengers. It is also submitted that GTF truck was found turned turtle and that it was facing the direction from which it bad come, indicating that gtf truck was moving recklessly and in excessive speed. ( 9 ) ON the other hand, the claimants as well as GTF truck driver owner and insurer have contended that the negligence was solely of the CPM truck which was moving in great speed and even on noticing that the GTF truck had already entered the inter-section, CPM truck driver was not in a position to stop his vehicle and had rammed into GTF truck which had almost reached the end of the inter-section and the impact was so great that the GTF truck was thrown off beyond road and had turned turtle and CPM truck, inspite of this collision with a heavy truck, could not stop at the place of impact in the inter-section, but it went much beyond due to great momentum, and was found on the wrong side of the road. The impact had taken place near the south-east corner of the intersection. From the fact that no truck or no goods or even no glass pieces were found in the inter-section shows that the entire accident was in the exteme corner of the inter-section and GTF truck was thrown off beyond the inter-section and beyond the road into a pit facing the direction from which it had come. From the fact that no truck or no goods or even no glass pieces were found in the inter-section shows that the entire accident was in the exteme corner of the inter-section and GTF truck was thrown off beyond the inter-section and beyond the road into a pit facing the direction from which it had come. Since GTF truck had already entered the inter-section and having crosed more than half of the inter-section, it was beyond the correct side of CPM truck and no accident would have occurred but for the fact that CPM truck was being driven obviously at a great speed, and in the middle of the road or on wrong side. It is, therefore, submitted that Rule 7 has not come into operation in the present case because this CPM truck was away when GTF truck had already entered the inter-section and under Rule 6, CPM truck ought to have taken care to look for the vehicles coming at the inter-section. In the light of above physical facts and circumstances, and rival submissions, the oral evidence may be examined. ( 10 ) THE oral evidence consists of deposition of claimants which are at Exh. 30, 62, 63 and 83. Ex. 117 is a driver who was in CPM truck (there is some dispute whether he was driving CPM truck or whether one jagdishsinh was the driver of the said truck ). Ex. 143 is the driver of gtf truck. ( 11 ) PANGALABHAI (Ex. 30) has stated that when his truck (GTF) had reached neer Bandhani Chokdi, another truck had come from Sojitra side and dashed against his truck. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the dash on his truck was in the rear part and at that time, bis truck (GTF) had already entered Petlad road. In para 5 of his deposition, he has stated that he did not know how the accident had occurred. Because of this one sentence, his evidence has been discarded by the Tribunal on the aspect of negligence. It is to be noted that he is an illiterate labourer and he will not be in a position to give exact details as to how the accident had occurred and who was negligent for causing such an accident and therefore, he may say that he did not know as to exactly how the accident had occurred. It is to be noted that he is an illiterate labourer and he will not be in a position to give exact details as to how the accident had occurred and who was negligent for causing such an accident and therefore, he may say that he did not know as to exactly how the accident had occurred. Nonetheless, the fact as to broadly how the accident had occurred could not have been discarded. He had stated that CPM truck had dashed with GTF truck. He had also stated that the impact was on the rear part of GTF truck and at that time, the front of the truck was on Petlad road. These facts are also corroborated to a great extent from the panchnama and physical facts. Therefore, even though he had not been in a position to say as to how exactly the accident had occurred. the facts as to the place of impact and the place where both the trucks collided cannot be disputed and his evidence to that extent has to be accepted. ( 12 ) SANDHUBEN (Ex. 62) has stated that the driver Kalubhai of GTF truck was driving the truck slowly and the accident had occurred near bandhani Chokdi. CPM truck had come from Sojitra side and dashed against the rear part of GTF truck and GTF truck had gone further and fallen in a pit. CPM truck which was coming from Sojitra side was in a great, speed and had dashed against GTF truck where the inter-section was about to be covered. In the cross-examination, she has stated that she had seen the truck coming from Sojitra side from a distance of about 200 feet and she had no idea as to how far the GTF truck was at that time. She had seen CPM truck at a distance of about 200 feet. She has further stated that as soon as their truck had reached near Bandhani chokdi, the accident had occurred. She has also stated that GTF truck had almost crossed the inter-section and its rear poition was in the inter-section and its front portion was outside the inter-section and at that time, the accident had occurred. ( 13 ) JOGADIA (Ex. She has further stated that as soon as their truck had reached near Bandhani chokdi, the accident had occurred. She has also stated that GTF truck had almost crossed the inter-section and its rear poition was in the inter-section and its front portion was outside the inter-section and at that time, the accident had occurred. ( 13 ) JOGADIA (Ex. 63) has also stated that his truck GTF was moving at a slow speed and when it had come near Bandhani Chokdi, CPM truck had come in a great speed from Sojitra side and dashed against the rear portion of GTF truck and GTF truck had turned turtle. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he had seen CPM truck from a distance of about 200 feet and at that time, GTF truck was at a distance of about 175 feet from the inter-section. He has denied the suggestion that GTF truck had dashed against CPM truck. He has stated that the CPM truck had dashed against rear of GTF truck with great force and at that time, the GTF truck had crossed the inter-section and the rear portion of the truck was inside the inter-section and front portion was towards Petlad and at that time, the accident occurred. These three witnesses were the labourers. ( 14 ) ASHOKKUMAR (Ex. 83) was standing on Petlad road on the left side, i. e. , outside south-east corner of the inter section. He has stated that both the trucks were moving at a great speed and the accident had occurred in the middle of the inter-section and from the GTF truck, acid containers were thrown off and acid had fallen on the road side. Upendrabhai was his companion who died in the accident. In the cross-examination, he has stated that when he saw the GTF truck for the first time, it was at about 15 feet away from the inter-section and it was coming with a great speed, but he could not say how much speed it was in kilometers. He was standing at about three to four feet away from the road. He was standing 30 feet away from the intersection on Petlad road and he could not say as to how far from him the accident had occurred. He was standing at about three to four feet away from the road. He was standing 30 feet away from the intersection on Petlad road and he could not say as to how far from him the accident had occurred. In further cross-examination, he was asked a question and suggested that he had not seen the collision of two trucks and the learned trial Judge has made a note that the witness did not reply to this question even-though it was repeated several times and, therefore, his evidence about having seen the accident is not relied. He has also stated that the inter-section is 60 feet x 60 feet and there is no island in that 60 feet. In view of his reluctance in replying to the question and suggestion that he had not seen the accident, the Tribunal has rightly not relied on his version as to how the accident had occurred, but the fact that the inter-section is 60 feet x 60 feet without any island and that he was standing at a distance of 30 feet from the inter-section cannot be disputed or disregarded. The fact that he was standing at a distance of about 30 feet from Petlad road indicates that the accident had occurred somewhere his side of inter-section, i. e. , south, east corner of the inter-section. ( 15 ) EX. 117 is the evidence of Shriram opponent No. 1 and he was joined as a driver of CPM truck and a written statement was filed by the owner of CPM truck stating that Shriram was not driving the vehicle, but another driver Jagjitsinh was driving the vehicle. Therefore, his name is deleted as an opponent and Jagjitsinh was joined as opponent No. 1. As Jagjitsinh could not be served, his name is also deleted. Shriram has admitted that police has filed criminal case against him in respect of this accident. According to this witness, he was not driving vehicle, but it was Jagjitsinh who was driving the vehicle. For the purpose of the present proceeding, it is not necessary to decide whether Shriram was driving or Jagjitsinh was driving the vehicle. The question is whether the driver of CPM truck was negligent. Therefore, without deciding as to who was the driver of CPM truck, we will examine the evidence of Shriram who was admittedly in CPM truck. 15a. For the purpose of the present proceeding, it is not necessary to decide whether Shriram was driving or Jagjitsinh was driving the vehicle. The question is whether the driver of CPM truck was negligent. Therefore, without deciding as to who was the driver of CPM truck, we will examine the evidence of Shriram who was admittedly in CPM truck. 15a. He has stated that when CPM truck was in the middle of the inter-section, GTF truck coming from Nadiad was at a distance of about 50 feet to 60 feet and when the accident took place, his truck had reached the end of the inter-section towards Anand side and the front portion of the GTF truck coming from Nadiad side had dashed with the front portion of CPM truck. According to him, right front portion of the GTF truck had dashed against the left front portion of CPM truck and as a result of the impact, CPM truck was facing towards Petlad. In the cross-examination, he has stated that GTF truck coming from Nadiad side was about 50 feet to 60 feet away when his truck (CPM) had crossed the middle of the intersection and had gone towards Anand. Then he stated that it had not gone further, but stopped at the inter-section. Again: he stated that accident had occurred when his truck had gone 20 feet to 22 feet from the middle of the inter-section towards Anand when the accident occurred. He also stated that the driver of his truck had applied brakes and after applying brakes, the truck had stopped moving within half a feet. Hi denied that after applying brakes, his truck had gone 34 feet ahead. The evidence of this witness is contrary to the established and undisputed physical facts. His say that the right front portion of the GTF truck had dashed against his truck is falsified by the fact that there is no damage to the right front of GTF truck. His say that the GTF truck had dashed with the left side of CPM truck is also falsified by the fact that it is not the left side of CPM truck which is damaged, but it is the front side of CPM which is damaged. About the place of actual impact in the inter-section, he has given inconsistent versions. His say that the GTF truck had dashed with the left side of CPM truck is also falsified by the fact that it is not the left side of CPM truck which is damaged, but it is the front side of CPM which is damaged. About the place of actual impact in the inter-section, he has given inconsistent versions. At one place, he states that at that time, CPM truck had already crossed the inter-section and gone towards Anand, while at another place he has stated that his truck had entered the inter-section when the accident occurred. The utter falsity of his version is also seen from the story that his truck had stopped within half a feet after applying the brakes and he had denied that cpm truck had proceeded 34 feet ahead after applying brakes. The panchnama has clearly noted these brake marks. Therefore, this witness is an absolute and total liar and his evidence cannot be believed at all. He is the only witness examined by the owner and insurer of CPM truck. His evidence is thoroughly unbelievable. His evidence shows that Jagjitsinh was also in the truck. Jagjitsinh is not examined by the owner and insurer of CPM truck. It is true that he could not be served through the Court when he. was joined as an opponent. There is no evidence to show that Jagjitsinh could not be examined due to the fact that either he had left the service or was absconding. In any case, Shriram also stated that cleaner Mulchand was also in the truck. He has also not been examined by the owner of the truck. The only witness examined by the owner and insurer of the CPM truck is Shriram who is totally unbelievable and unreliable. Therefore, the only evidence that remains is the evidence led by the claimants, panchnama and the photographs. ( 16 ) FROM the above evidence, it is clear that : (i) the accident had occurred near the south-east corner of the inter-section; (ii) that south-east corner shows that it would be correct side of GTF truck which was proceeding towards south and it would be the wrong side of CPM truck which was proceeding to the east. Therefore, the point of impact shows that CPM truck was on the wrong side. Therefore, the point of impact shows that CPM truck was on the wrong side. (iii) the brake marks of 34 feet show that CPM truck driver is in know of the fact that GTF truck is in the inter-section. Before applying the brake, there is some thinking time and thinking distance. In Binghams Motor Claims Cases, there is a table showing thinking distance, braking distance and overall stopping distance which reads as follows : ( 21 ) IN Lajwanti and Anr. v. Keshav Prasad and Ors. , 1984 ACJ 664, Madhya pradesh High Court had also an occasion to deal with Rules 6 and 7 and in para 8. Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that regulation 7 does not give right to a person on the main road to run over everybody coming from the side lane. It would be hazardous to generalise in every case of collision in the inter-section that there is negligence on the part of the truck which does not give way to the vehicle coming from the right side. ( 22 ) MR. Shah has also contended that apart from driving negligence of gtf driver, there was utter negligence on the part of GTF driver in carrying dangerous substance like acid and 35 human beings together in the truck. Reference has been made to Rules 118 and 267 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles rules. Rule 118 provides that no person shall be carried in a goods vehicle and Rule 267 provides that no dangerous substance shall be carried in any public service vehicle unless it is so packed that even in case of accident to vehicle, it is unlikely to cause damage or injury to the vehicle or to the persons carried therein. It is, therefore, submitted that statutory duty has been cast not to carry passengers in goods vehicle and not to carry dangerous substance in any public service vehicle unless it is so packed that it does not cause damage or injury to any person even in case of accident and breach of this duty is itself negligence on the part of GTF driver. Therefore, it is contended that GTF driver is negligent in this respect and there is at least one death due to inhalation of acid fume as seen from the postmortem report and two to three cases of personal injuries by acid burns and these injuries and this death would not have taken place but for the breach of statutory duty on the part of GTF driver and, therefore, there is contributory negligence on the part of GTF driver for causing death of one person and injuries to some other claimants. It is, true that this can be said to be negligence. but this negligence has not in any manner contributed to the accident. The accident has taken place solely due to the negligence of CPM truck driver and there is no contributory negligence in this respect by the GTF driver. Once 100% driving negligence is attributed to CPM truck which has caused the accident, the resultant damage, death or injury has to be attributed to the driving negligence of CPM truck and it is not possible to hold that there was any contributory negligence which has resulted into death of one person and injuries to some other persons because of breach of duty by gtf driver. The breach of that duty has not in any way resulted into the accident which was purely due to driving negligence and this breach of duty cannot be said to be negligence or negligence that can be said to be contributory to the accident or death due to acid fume and injuries due to acid burns. ( 23 ) IT is also contended that so far as CPM truck driver is concerned, whether he is Shriram or Jagjitsinh, neither of these are parties to the litigation and unless such driver is a party to the litigation, he cannot be held to be negligent. If he is held to be negligent, he has to be made a party and only if he is negligent, his owner might be vicariously liable and only is that case, the insurer will be required to indemnify the owner. When the driver himself is not a party, he cannot be held negligent and he cannot he held liable. If the driver is not liable, the case against that set of defendants must fail. Let us examine this submission. When the driver himself is not a party, he cannot be held negligent and he cannot he held liable. If the driver is not liable, the case against that set of defendants must fail. Let us examine this submission. It is to be noted that the negligence of the driver has to be established before the owner can be held vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver. However, it is not necessary that the driver should be held liable to pay compensation for his negligence because the owner can be held liable vicariously for the negligence of the driver. The negligance of the driver and the liability of the driver for such negligence are different and separate things. The negligence of a driver can be established even when driver is not made a party. This question has been concluded by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of L I. C. v. Heirs and Legal representatives of Naranbhal Mwjabhai Vadhia and Ors. , (1972) XIII GLR 920. Similar question had arisen at the appellate stage and the question was considered under Order XLI Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Cede. In that case, one of the drivers was not found and, therefore, his name was deleted; one of the drivers died during the pendency of the appeal and his heirs were not brought on record. The appeal filed by the insurance company was found not only competent, but even the cross-objections filed by the claimants against the insurer without the drivers being parties were held to be competent and cross-objections for enhancement of the claim were allowed. Order XLI Rule 4 of Civil Proceedure Code provides that where there are more plaintiffs or more defendants than one in a suit and the decree appealed from proceeds on any ground common to all the plaintiffs or to all the defendants, any one of the plaintiffs or of the defendants may appeal from the whole decree, and thereupon the appellate Court may reverse or vary the decree in favour of all the plaintiffs or defendants, as the case may be. Therefore, the appeal filed by the insurance company alone without joining drivers as parties was held to be competent and as the appeal wag competent, cross-objections were also held to be competent and the Division bench held that the only effect of absence of drivers would be that so far as the quantum of liability of those drivers is concerned, it may not be increased and the extent of liability of the insurance company has to be measured by the indemnity clause. Ultimately, the cross-objections were allowed and amounts of compensation awarded to the claimants from the owner and the insurer were enhanced. It was also held that the liability of the defendants was the liability of joint tort feasors and all or any of them could have been sued even separately and each was severally answerable for the same. In view of this Division Bench judgment that the claim can be made and adjudicated against the owner and the insurer even in absence of the driver directly negatives the contention of Mr. Shah. ( 24 ) MR. Shah also contended that the cross-objections by the claimants have been filed in the appeals filed by the other insurer New India Assurance co. Ltd. who is the insurer of GTF truck and no cross-objections have been filed in the appeals filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd. , the insurer of CPM truck and, therefore, in absence of any cross-objections in the appeals filed by National Insurance Co. , National Insurance Co. is not required to meet with any cross-objections of the claimants which are not filed in their appeals. The relevant provision of Civil Procedure Code is Order XLI Rules 22 and 23. It provides that any respondent though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, he may not only support the decree, but he may also take any cross-objections to the decree which he could have taken by way of appeal. Sub-rule (3) provides that all parties who may be affected by such objections have to be served with copy thereof. Thus, virtually, crossobjection arc cross-appeals and will have the same effect as if they are independent appeals and whoever is liable on such appeal can be rendered liable whether such party is the appellant or respondent or co-respondent. Sub-rule (3) provides that all parties who may be affected by such objections have to be served with copy thereof. Thus, virtually, crossobjection arc cross-appeals and will have the same effect as if they are independent appeals and whoever is liable on such appeal can be rendered liable whether such party is the appellant or respondent or co-respondent. This is also fortified from sub-rule (4) which provides that if the original appeal is withdrawn or dismissed for default, the cross-objections so filed may nevertheless be heard and determined after such notice to the other parties as the Court thinks fit. Rule 33 provides for power of Court of appeal to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require and this power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties although such parties may not have filed any appeal or objections. ( 25 ) IN Pannalal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 1516 the Supreme court held that the wide wording of Order XLI Rule 33 of Civil Procedure code was intended to entitle the appellate Court to make whatever order it thinks fit not only as between the appellant and the respondent, but also as between a respondent and a respondent. It empowers the appellate court not only to give reliefs to the appellant, but also to give such other reliefs to the respondent as the case may require and the appellate court while allowing the appeal of one of the defendants by dismissing the plaintiffs suit against it, it can give a degree in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against other co-respondents defendants, who are parties to the appeal and this is made clear by an illustration to Rule 33. ( 26 ) IN the case of Koksingh v. Smt. Dookabai, AIR 1976 SC 634 , the supreme Court held that even in absence of any appeal or cross-appeal, the high Court is competent to pass a decree in favour of the respondent in exercise of power under Order XLI Rule 22 in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 26 ) IN the case of Koksingh v. Smt. Dookabai, AIR 1976 SC 634 , the supreme Court held that even in absence of any appeal or cross-appeal, the high Court is competent to pass a decree in favour of the respondent in exercise of power under Order XLI Rule 22 in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 27 ) AS far as the claimants are concerned, they claim compensation from all or any of the opponents and tort feasors. The Tribunal has passed an award in their favour holding all the opponents liable jointly and severally. They have filed cross-objections for enhancement of their claim in appeals preferred by United India Insurance Co. They are not required to file separate cross-objections in the appeals filed by the National Insurance Co. If they succeed in establishing that they are entitled to-enhanced claim, they are claiming that amount from the joint tort feasors whose liability is joint and several. To counter their claim for compensation, it is open to either sets of defendants to contend that the other set of defendants is liable for compensation and on the Court reaching conclusion holding any of the set of defendants liable for compensation, it is competent for appellate Court to pass appropriate orders in cross-objections holding any of the tort feasors and their insurers liable and pass decree and award accordingly. ( 28 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that CPM truck driver alone is negligent and GTF truck driver was not negligent and, therefore, the award passed against GTF truck driver, owner and insurer cannot be sustained. ( 29 ) WE have also held that the cross-objections filed by the claimants in the appeals filed by the New India Assurance Co. are maintainable and if any claim fur any enhancement is established, additional award against the co-respondent can be passed. We will, therefore, now examine the crossobjections for the purpose of ascertaining the quantum of compensation. ( 30 ) THE learned Counsel for the claimants have submitted that : (1) interest from the date of application till the date of deposit has been awarded at the rate of 6% only and it should have been awarded at the rate of 12%. (2) that in fatal cases, the income has been assessed at the rate of Rs. 300. (2) that in fatal cases, the income has been assessed at the rate of Rs. 300. 00 per month and it should have been assessed at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month; (3) that the Multiplier which has been adopted in these cases is 15 and it should have been at least 20 or more; (4) that in fatal cases, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 5000. 00under the head of loan of expectation of life and it should have been awarded at the rate of Rs. 10,000. 00. In five injury cases, from the facts of each case, enhancement is claimed. ( 31 ) IN several cases, different High Courts including Gujarat High Court has been awarding interest at the rate of 12% p. a. In the cases reported in 1989 AC J 542, 948, 1143, Andhra Pradesh and Punjab and Haryana High court enhanced the interest from 6% to 12%. The Division Bench of this court in Civil Appeal Nos. 176 to 180 of 7979, has by its judgment dated 10-7-1990, awarded interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application. The same rule has to be applied uniformly in all cases unless any special reason is indicated for not awarding this rate of interest. In the present case, we do not find any reason to make any departure and, therefore, the rate of interest has to be enhanced from 6% to 12% in all the cross-objections. The conventional figure which has been adopted by the Tribunal in these cases is Rs. 5,000. 00. In Smt. Rafia Sultan W/o. Mirza Sultan v. OH and Natural gas Commission, 1985 (2) GLR 1315 which was a case of an accident of 1978, this High Court has awarded Rs. 10,000. 00 and, therefore, under this head, in the cross-objections regarding fatal cases, the amount is required to be enhanced from Rs. 5,000. 00 to Rs. 10,000. 00. ( 32 ) THE claim for enhancement with regard to the datum figure is that the datum figure should have been based on the basis of monthly Income of the labourers at Rs. 500. 00 per month. In para 101 of the Judgment, the tribunal has considered this aspect and the evidence regarding income and wages of the labourers. Some had deposed that the earning was Rs. 25. 00 per day whereas some others had deposed that wages were Rs. 500. 00 per month. In para 101 of the Judgment, the tribunal has considered this aspect and the evidence regarding income and wages of the labourers. Some had deposed that the earning was Rs. 25. 00 per day whereas some others had deposed that wages were Rs. 12. 00 per day and there was no evidence that they used to get employment on all days. The tribunal has also recorded that Advocates for both the parties have conceded that the income should be assessed at Rs. 10. 00 per day, i. e. , Rs. 300. 00 per month. In view of the evidence on record and in view of the concession, we do not think that the estimate of assessment of the Tribunal requires any modification. Therefore, this contention of the claimants for enhancement under this head must fail. ( 33 ) THE multiplier of 15 has been adopted by the Tribunal and the claimants have submitted that it should have been more and judgments of some of the high Courts have been cited where higher multiplier has been adopted. However, there is no reason for adopting higher multiplier as was adopted in view of the facts and circumstances of the cases reported in 7977 ACJ 20 by Bombay high Court, 1978 ACJ 289 by Punjab and Haryana High Court and 1978 ACJ 476 by Andhra Pradesh High Court. ( 34 ) IN the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service v. Manekben wd/o. Vithalbhai Datnaji Chavda, (1981) XXII GLR 575, the Division Bench of this Court had considered the question of multiplier in para 15, and following ratio of the judgment in the case of C. K. S. lyer v. T. B. Nair, AIR 1976 sc 376 was followed :"it would appear from these illustrative cases that the trend has been to capitalise the loss of dependency benefit at 15 years purchase on the outer side in the case of persons in thirties and forties when they were the bread winner of the family. It is well settled that in making the awards in accident cases, the court is usually guided by awards made in previous cases. Therefore, these decisions must be held as providing the guideline for the determination of the correct multiple in the case of a person who was at the fag end of fifties. It is well settled that in making the awards in accident cases, the court is usually guided by awards made in previous cases. Therefore, these decisions must be held as providing the guideline for the determination of the correct multiple in the case of a person who was at the fag end of fifties. "following the aforesaid ratio of the Supreme Court, the Division Bench held that in cases of victims of accident who were in thirties or forties, when their lives are cut short by unfortunate accident, multiplier of 12 to 15 with outer limit of 15 was found to be quite proper multiplier to be adopted in capitalizing the dependency benefit so as to work out just compensation. Thus, 15 multiplier is the outer limit as held by the Division Bench of this Court. The Tribunal has adopted the same multiplier. We do not think that any case is made out for adopting any higher multiplier and, therefore, this contention fails. ( 35 ) NOW, taking up individual injury cases, the claim for enhancement is made in cross-objections in five appeals namely Civil Appeal No. 1255 of 1985, 1257 of 1985, 1258 of 1985, 1260 of 1985. In cross-objections in First appeal No. 1255 of 1285, additional claim is made on the ground of pain, shock and suffering. Paras 230 to 235 of the judgment of the Tribunal deal with this aspect. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000. 00for non-pecuniary loss, i. e. , for mental agony, pain, shock and suffering. The injured applicant sandhuben had suffered three fractures, simple fracture of tibia fibula, fracture of pelvis and fracture of left clavicle. She was admitted as an indoor patient for three months. Fracture of the left leg was fixed by means of nail and she was bed-ridden for three months. She was operated on 6-4-1983, plating and bone grafting was done for the fracture of tibia fibula. After the fracture was united, there was difficulty in walking long distance. There were pointing screws on the dorsum of leg. There was wasting of left quadricop and calf. There was shortening of leg by one c. m. Bone was taken from pelvis and there was permanent physical impairment assessed at 15%. For the purpose of present cross-objections, we are concerned with the head of pain, shock and suffering only. There were pointing screws on the dorsum of leg. There was wasting of left quadricop and calf. There was shortening of leg by one c. m. Bone was taken from pelvis and there was permanent physical impairment assessed at 15%. For the purpose of present cross-objections, we are concerned with the head of pain, shock and suffering only. There are in all three fractures, operations, bone grafting and she was bed-ridden for three months. ( 36 ) IN the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Niranjan Ambalal patel, [1982 (2)] XXIII (2) GLR 180, towards damages for non-pecuniary loss, i. e. , pain, shock and suffering in respect of fracture of right femur, a sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 was awarded. In that case, the estimate with regard to the permanent disability of a particular limb was within 5 to 10 per cent. The period of hospitalisation was 21 days. Having regard to the facts of the present case of multiple fractures and long hospitalisation and particularly operation and bone grafting, an amount of Rs. 25,000. 00should have been awarded. As the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 15,000/-, additional amount of Rs. 10,000. 00 is required to be awarded and to that extent, the cross-objections are required to be allowed and this amount of Rs. 10,000. 00 will carry interest at the rate of 12% p. a. from the date of application till realisation with proportionate costs on the said amount. ( 37 ) IN cross-objections in Civil Appeal No. 1257 of 1985, an amount of Rs. 28,000. 00 has been awarded for non-pecuniary loss, i. e. , pain, shock and suffering. The main injury is loss of vision of the right eye and also first degree burns over right side chest and reliance has been placed in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (supra) where some of the cases were for loss of vision. The Division Bench held that when a man loses an eye, in normal circumstances, once he accustoms himself to monovision, he does not suffer any great inconvenience, but one of the most important factor which must be taken into consideration is that if by chance he loses the remaining eye, the person would become stone blind and loses much of the pleasures of life and was awarded a sum of Rs. 37,500. 00. 37,500. 00. This judgment was considered by the Tribunal in para 251 of the judgment and considering that there was also some brain injury in the reported case where Rs. 37,500/ - was the amount awarded, the Tribunal thought that the present claimant was entitled to something less and, therefore, the amount is reduced by Rs. 10,000. 00 and only Rs. 28,000. 00 has been awarded. ( 38 ) THE learned Counsel for the National Insurance Co. submitted that the claimant was advised to go to SSG Hospital at Baroda. However, he has refused to go to Baroda Hospital for treatment. However, the evidence of the claimant Ex. 64 shows that after treatment at Petlad, he was admitted in Baroda hospital and he had taken treatment for three days. Therefore, it is not take he has neglected to take treatment. This part of the evidence of the claimant is not challenged. The permanent disability is loss of vision in one eye and reduction of Rs. 10,000. 00 was not justified. In our opinion, the claimant should have been awarded Rs. 35,000. 00 and not Rs. 28,000. 00 only. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to additional amount of compensation of Rs. 7,000. 00 from the date of application till realisation. ( 39 ) IN cross-objections in Civil Appeal No. 1258 of 1985, the claimant is awarded Rs. 30,000. 00 as non-pecuniary loss. He had suffered burn injuries and he was treated as an indoor patient for two months and vision of right eye was totally lost. His skin of the right leg was peeled. There were first degree burns over face, back of neck, right scapular region, right arm and posterior part of right thigh and right gluteal region in addition to the carneal capacity of lower part with vision loss of about 80 to 85% of right side the serious burn injuries were almost all over the body. These burn injuries would have caused great physical and mental agony in addition to loss of vision of one eye. In the case of loss of vision of one eye, i. e. , in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (supra), the Court has awarded rs. 37,500/ -. In the present case, there are extensive burns, and injuries all over the body, and hospitalisation for about two months. Therefore, the claimant should have been awarded a sum of Rs. 45,000. In the case of loss of vision of one eye, i. e. , in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (supra), the Court has awarded rs. 37,500/ -. In the present case, there are extensive burns, and injuries all over the body, and hospitalisation for about two months. Therefore, the claimant should have been awarded a sum of Rs. 45,000. 00 under the head of pain, shock and suffering and non-pecuniary loss for the loss of vision of one eye and extensive burn injuries. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 30,000. 00 under this head and, therefore, there will be an additional award of Rs. 15,000. 00 from the date of application till realisation with proportionate costs and interest. ( 40 ) IN cross-objections in Civil Appeal No. 1260 of 1985, a girl of 12 years is awarded Rs. 30,000. 00. The back portion of the minor girl was broken. The discussion in the trial Courts judgment is in paras 272 to 289. In all, she has been awarded Rs. 70,975. 00 including Rs. 30,000. 00 for non-pecuniary loss. In cross-objections, the claim is pressed for additional compensation under this head of non-pecuniary loss. This girl was aged 12 years at the time of accident. She was admitted in the hospital and it was found that she had a compression fracture third lumber vertebra with paresis i. e. , weakness of both the limbs. Operation was performed on. 9-2-1983. She was given plaster spika from neck to knee and was in the hospital as an indoor patient for almost a year and had to take physiotherapy treatment for a long time thereafter. She had three operative scars; first scar was 8 inches in length, second was 12 inches and third scar was 6 inches. in length. The medical evidence is that she has nearly 60% disability. Squating is not possible; flexion was restricted to 50 degrees. She had hypothesia, i e. , diminished sensation over lumber 3, 4 and 5 dosmantom. The plan was severe because of compression fracture. Even when she was last examined, she was having pain. Her marriage chances were seriously affected. She cannot walk without support and she will not be able to do manual work. The Tribunal has observed that there is disfiguration of the body and she is virtually a cripple. It would not he possible for her to marry. Even when she was last examined, she was having pain. Her marriage chances were seriously affected. She cannot walk without support and she will not be able to do manual work. The Tribunal has observed that there is disfiguration of the body and she is virtually a cripple. It would not he possible for her to marry. Her parents are already dead and she is likely to live a lonely life and the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 30,000/ - as non-pecuniary loss. It appears that this amount is very low having regard to the aforesaid aspects of long hospitalisation,, long lasting pain, loss of marriage prospects and loss of happy life and being dependent. In our opinion, under this head, an amount of Rs. 45,000. 00 should have been awarded. Therefore, we direct that the amount of award be enhanced by Rs. 15,000/ - under the head of non-pecuniary loss. . ( 41 ) IN the result, having held that there was no negligence on the part of GTF driver and there was negligence only on the part of CPM truck driver, awards passed against the driver, owner and insurer of GTF truck are set aside and it is held that the owner and insurer of CPM truck are liable to satisfy the awards as enhanced and modified by this judgment. ( 42 ) THUS, the appeals filed by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. are allowed. The appeals filed by National Insurance Co. and the owner of CPM truck are dismissed. The cross-objections filed by the claimants are partly allowed by enhancing the rate of interest and enhancing the global amount in fatal cases and enhancing the amount in the specific cross-objection as discussed hereinabove. The cross-objections filed by the owner of the CPM truck in Civil Appeal No. 1262 of 1985 are also dismissed. It may be mentioned that the owner of CPM truck has filed a declaration in this Court that in the event of any amount being awarded from the other side, the amount paid to that owner by his insurance company will be reimbursed to the said insurer. However, that has become academic in view of our finding that sole negligence is of CPM truck driver. In view of the fact that the two insurers are nationalised insurance companies, it is directed that the National Insurance Company shall pay directly to the New India Assurance Co. However, that has become academic in view of our finding that sole negligence is of CPM truck driver. In view of the fact that the two insurers are nationalised insurance companies, it is directed that the National Insurance Company shall pay directly to the New India Assurance Co. , the amount deposited by it in pursuance of the award of the Tribunal. Now that the award against New India Assurance company is reversed and the National Insurance Company is held liable and, therefore, the joint pursis shall be filed in the Tribunal to the aforesaid effect. These cross-objections are allowed accordingly with proportionate costs and interest at 12% p. a. As far as other parties are concerned, they will bear their own costs. .