JUDGMENT 1. - These appeals have been filed under Section 110D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the common award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur dated August 12,1985. The facts of the cases giving rise to these appeals may be summarised thus. 2. On June 26,1980, a head-on collision took place in between Taxi Car No. RST 6027 and Tanker No. DHL 2454 near the Village Lava on Kherwara-Udaipur road. In the accident, Taxi Car passengers, namely, Vishnu Kumar, Saffuddin, Laluram Shivnath Singh and Ramesh Chandra died and Vidhya Devi was injured. Both these vehicles were insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (appellant and respondent No. 4). The Tanker was owned by M/s Das Transport Company, Shakur Basti, New Delhi (respondent No. 2) and it was being driven by its driver Thakur Das. The Taxi Car was owned by Modh. Rashid (respondent No. 6) and it was being driven by its driver Vijay Singh. Five Claims Petitions were filed by the legal representatives of the aforesaid deceased passengers of the Taxi Car. The injured Vidhya Devi also filed a claim petition. They were contested by all the opposite parties after framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Tribunal awarded the following amounts: S.No. Appeal No. Claims Petition No. Total amount awarded. 1. 26/86 37/81 24,000 2. 27/86 27/81 58,800 3. 28/86 152/80 63,000 4. 29/86 176/80 57,000 5. 30/86 35/81 39,000 6. 31/86 36/81 16,882 3. The learned Tribunal has held that the accident took place due to the contributory negligence of the Taxi car driver and Tanker driver in the ratio of 4:1 and accordingly opportioned the liability for the payment of the aforesaid amounts of compensation by the driver, owner and insurance Company of the vehicles. 4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal has seriously erred to make the appellant liable in excess of Rs. 50,000. He contended that according to the provisions of Section 95 (2)(b), Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- in respect of each passenger of the Taxi car subject to the total limit of Rs. 50,000 and Under Section 95(2)(a), it was liable to the maximum extent of Rs. 50,000/- only for the negligence of the Tanker driver. He relied upon M.K. Unni Mohd. 10,000/- in respect of each passenger of the Taxi car subject to the total limit of Rs. 50,000 and Under Section 95(2)(a), it was liable to the maximum extent of Rs. 50,000/- only for the negligence of the Tanker driver. He relied upon M.K. Unni Mohd. v. P.A. Ahmed Kutta, AIR 1987 SC 2153 : (1987) 1 ACC 262 . 5. In reply, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the accident took place due to the composite negligence of the Tanker driver and Taxi car driver, there was no question of contributory negligence as neither any deceased nor the injured had been responsible for the said accident and as such the drivers and owners of both the vehicles are jointly and severally liable to pay the entire amounts of compensation awarded to the various claimants. They further contended that the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is insurer of both the vehicles, its liability was to extent of Rs. 50,000/- under the policy of insurance of the car and also to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- for each passenger of the car as third party under the insurance policy of the tanker. 6. The appeals have no substance. It is not the case of any party in any case that the deceased/injured was responsible in any way for the accident. As such there was no question of contributory negligence in these cases. It is a case of complete negligence of drivers of both the vehicles. As such their owners and drivers are jointly and severally required to pay the entire amounts of compensation. 7. Admittedly, both the said vehicles were insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The deceased Vishnu Kumar, Saffuddin, Laluram Shivnath Singh and Ramesh Chandra and injured Vidhya Devi were passengers of the taxi car, so far the insurance policy of the car was concerned and all of them were third party so far the insurance policy of the tanker was concerned. As such the Insurance Co. is liable Under Section 95 (2)(b) of the Act to pay to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- in each claim petition subject to the maximum of Rs. 50,000 in all the six cases, under its insurance policy of the taxi car. It is further liable to pay Under Section 95 (2)(a) of the Act to the extent of Rs. is liable Under Section 95 (2)(b) of the Act to pay to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- in each claim petition subject to the maximum of Rs. 50,000 in all the six cases, under its insurance policy of the taxi car. It is further liable to pay Under Section 95 (2)(a) of the Act to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants of each case, as laid down in Motor Owners Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadav Ji Keshav Ji Modi, 1981 A.C.J. 507 (SC) . In respect of both insurance policies, the total liability of the Oriental Insurance Company comes to 50,000 + 50,000 x 6 = Rs. 3,50,000/-. The total of the amounts awarded in all six cases is Rs. 2,58,682/- It is below the said maximum liability. Except in Claim Case No. 152/80 (S. B. Misc. Civil Appeal No. 28/86), amount of compensation awarded does not exceed Rs. 59,000/-. As such the Insurance Company is liable to pay to the claimants Saraf Ali and other of the Claim Case No. 152/80 to the extent of Rs. 60,000/- and in all other cases it is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation awarded. To this extent the award deserves modification. 8. M.K. Kunhimohemmed v. P.A. Ahmed Kutty and Ors., 1987 ACJ 872 (SC) : II ACC 346 (SC) : AIR 1987 SC 2158 does not deal with the case of the third party, as was the case in Motor Owner's Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi, 1981 ACJ 507 (SC) : AIR 1981 SC 2059 . As such it cannot be said that the law laid down in Motor Owner's Insurance Company v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi (supra) stood overruled. It may also be mentioned here that M.K. Kunhimohemmed case has been decided by Hon'ble two Judges and Motor Owner's Insurance's case was decided by Hon'ble three Judges of the Supreme Court 9. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 10% per annum if the amount of compensation is not paid within three months of the award. A Division Bench of this Court has held in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 10982 "R.S.R.T.C. v. Smt. Manorma and Ors." decided on November 30, 1988 as under: "In our opinion, increase in the rate of interest to make it reasonable is clearly permissible even without any express prayer in the cross-objection to that effect. A Division Bench of this Court has held in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 10982 "R.S.R.T.C. v. Smt. Manorma and Ors." decided on November 30, 1988 as under: "In our opinion, increase in the rate of interest to make it reasonable is clearly permissible even without any express prayer in the cross-objection to that effect. We would add that it is in fact the duty of the court to increase the rate of interest to make it reasonable in order to ensure award of just compensation' as required originally by Section 110-B and later also by Section 110-CC of the Motor Vehicles Act. We see no impediment in doing so. The question now is of the rate of interest which would be reasonable. We have no doubt that interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of award is too low by any standard and interest should be awarded to the claimants on the amount of compensation @ 12% p.a. from the date of claim, i.e. May 30,1979. The rate of 12% p.a. is the reasonable rate even according to some recent decisions of the Supreme Court (See Smt. Chameli Wati and Anr. v. Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi and Ors., AIR 1986 SC 1191 and Jagbir Singh and Ors. v. General Manager, Punjab Roadways and Ors., AIR 1987 SC 70 . Accordingly, we direct that interest shall be paid on the amount of compensation determined as payable to the claimants @ 12% p.a. from the date of the claim petition, May 30,1979 instead of @ 6% p.a from the date of award granted by the learned Single Judge. 10. Consequently, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is liable to pay the entire amounts of compensation awarded to the claimants in all cases except in Claim Case No. 152/80 (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 28/86) in which it is liable to pay compensation to the extent of Rs. 60,000/-. The claimant-respondents are entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the institution of the Claim Petition to the date of payment. To this extent, the common award is modified. Appeals are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs in any appeal.Appeal disposed of accordingly. *******