JUDGMENT 1. The above mentioned eight appeals have been directed against the award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur on 1.6.1991 in five claim cases. Appeals No. 516/91, 517/91, 518/91 & 519/91 have been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation while appeals Nos. 159/92,160/92,226/92 & 238/92 have been taken by the State of Rajasthan challenging the award passed against them. 2. The facts leading to the claim cases are that on 3.1.1985 Madan Lal, Ravindra Kumar, K.L. Goyal (deceased) and Sita Ram Agarwal (deceased) were travelling in Government tracker No. RSV 6962 from Jaipur to Udaipur on Government duty. Whaidur Rehman was driving the tracker. When the tracker reached near village Nasroad, truck RJE-8957 driven by Roop Lal came from opposite direction and dashed against the tracker. Wahiddur Rehman, K.L. Goyal and Sita Ram Agarwal died on the spot and Ravindra Kumar and Madan Lal sustained injuries. In some of the claim cases it was averred that the accident had occurred because of rash and negligent driving of tracker and truck whereas in other cases it was averred that the cause of accident was the driving of truck rashly and negligently. All the five claim cases were consolidated and decided by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment. 3. In the reply filed by the truck driver, owner and the Insurance Company (to be hereinafter referred to as the first set of respondents) it was averred that the driver of the truck was not responsible for the accident and that tracker was being driven rashly and negligently and when the tracker made an attempt to overtake a truck by moving on the wrong side there was an accident, though the truck driver tried to avoid the accident. The respondent State of Rajasthan and the Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D. (to be hereinafter referred to as the second set of respondents) in their reply averred that the cause of the accident was the driving of the truck rashly and negligently and the tracker driver was not at all responsible for the accident. The Tribunal framed six issues in all the cases and thereafter recorded evidence in one case for all the claim cases. On claimants side, nine witnesses were examined and four witnesses were examined for the respondents. 4. The Tribunal framed six issues in all the cases and thereafter recorded evidence in one case for all the claim cases. On claimants side, nine witnesses were examined and four witnesses were examined for the respondents. 4. The Tribunal held that the drivers of both the vehicles i.e. tracker and truck were responsible for the accident as both of them were driving vehicles rashly and negligently. The tribunal apportioned the liability of compensation 60% of the truck and 40% of the tracker. It held that the legal hirs of K.L. Goyal are entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,01,080/- as compensation. Rs. 15,000/- paid as interim award were deducted and award was passed against the owner, driver and Insurance Company of the truck for Rs. 1,65,648/- and against the State of Rajasthan for Rs. 1,20,432/-. The claim case filed by the legal heirs of Sita Ram was decreed for a sum of Rs. 2,43,240/-. A sum of Rs. 7,500/- had already been paid by the Insurance Company under the principle of no fault liability and, therefore, after deducting this sum award of Rs. 17,296 was passed against the first set of respondents and for the remaining sum award was passed against the second set of respondents. In the claim case filed by Madanlal injured, award was passed for a sum of Rs. 1,23,000/-. The first set of respondents was directed to pay Rs. 73,800/- and the State of Rajasthan was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 49,400/-. In the claim case of Ravindra Kumar Singh, injured, an award was passed for a sum of Rs. 60,000/- first set of respondents was directed to pay Rs. 36,000/- and the State of Rajasthan was directed to pay Rs. 24,000/-. As already stated the State of Rajasthan has questioned the passing of the award against them by filing four appeals; whereas the claimants have come for the enhancement of compensation. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 6. The first question to be determined is whether the Tribunal has erred in decreeing the claim against the State of Rajasthan i.e. the second set of respondents. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 6. The first question to be determined is whether the Tribunal has erred in decreeing the claim against the State of Rajasthan i.e. the second set of respondents. Madan Lal AW 4 who was travelling in the tracker and was injured has deposed that the tracker was also being driven at fast speed and that the driver had made an attempt to overtake a truck, moving ahead, and at that time there was an accident. Ravindra Kumar Singh, AW 5 who was also occupant of the tracker has deposed that the accident had occurred because of the mistake on the part of both the drivers. He has admitted that the tracker had crossed the midline of the road when the accident had occurred. By the testimony of the of both the witnesses it is amply proved that the accident had taken place not only because the truck was being driven at excessive speed but also because of the excessive speed of the tracker and the driver of the tracker did not take proper care while overtaking the struck. Had the driver of the tracker been vigilant he could certainly avoid the accident. It is obvious that the driver of the tracker crossed the midline and went on the wrong side at the time of accident. In this situation the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the drivers of both the vehicles were responsible for the accident. The Tribunal has also not erred when it fixed 40 per cent liability of the tracker. That being so, there is no merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan that the claims should not have been decreed against the State of Rajasthan and the entire claim ought to have been decreed against the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the truck. 7. Now it is to be seen whether the award needs modification. CLAIM CASE OF SMT. SAMPATI DEVI & ORS.8. K.L. Goyal (52) was drawing a sum of Rs. 3652/- as salary. The Tribunal has assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 2,435/- per month. Adopting the multiplier of 10 a sum of Rs. 2,92,080/- was worked out. To this amount Rs. 9,000/- was added for the loss of consortium and deprivation of love and affection.9. The contention of Mr. K.L. Goyal (52) was drawing a sum of Rs. 3652/- as salary. The Tribunal has assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 2,435/- per month. Adopting the multiplier of 10 a sum of Rs. 2,92,080/- was worked out. To this amount Rs. 9,000/- was added for the loss of consortium and deprivation of love and affection.9. The contention of Mr. Mathur was that K.L. Goyal had filed writ petition which was decided in his favour and had Shri Goyal not died in the accident he would have been made Chief Engineer and his salary would have been Rs. 6,330/- per month. The judgment dated 27.11.1984 delivered by this Court indicates that the writ petition filed by Shri K.L. Goyal was partly allowed and the State Government was directed to reconvene the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee and consider the case of the petitioner (K.L. Goyal). There is nothing on record to hold that Shri K.L. Goyal on consideration of the D.P.C. was found fit to be promoted as Chief Engineer. In this view of the matter, it cannot be accepted that the monthly income of Shri Goyal ought to have been taken at Rs. 6,330/-. The Tribunal has certainly adopted much higher multiplier in this case. At the age of 52 of the deceased the appropriate multiplier could not be more than 5. At the same time it cannot be said that the compensation awarded is excessive as the deceased was on stable job, and therefore, his present income would be doubled to work out the loss of dependency.10. However, the award needs modification in one respect-There is much substance in the contention of Mr. Mathur that the Tribunal was not justified in apportioning the liability between the two sets of respondents. it was a case of composite negligence. Therefore, the claimants were entitled to the entire compensation from either of the two sets of respondents and the claim ought to have been decreed against both the sets of respondents jointly and severely. Certainly it was not a case of contributory negligence. K.L. Goyal had not contributed to the accident and, therefore, there was no justification in apportioning the liability in two sets of respondents qua claimants. It is found that the claimants of appeal No. 516/91 are entitled to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from both the sets of respondents jointly and severely. CLAIM CASE OF SMT. K.L. Goyal had not contributed to the accident and, therefore, there was no justification in apportioning the liability in two sets of respondents qua claimants. It is found that the claimants of appeal No. 516/91 are entitled to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from both the sets of respondents jointly and severely. CLAIM CASE OF SMT. PREM LATA & ORS.11. Deceased Sita Ram Agarwal was 55 years of age at the time of accident. His monthly income was Rs. 3,800/-. The Tribunal has assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 2,440/- and adopting multiplier of 8' a sum of Rs. 2,34,240/- was worked out. To this sum, Rs. 9,000/- was added as loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. In my considered opinion, there is no scope for the enhancement of the amount awarded. The Tribunal has already adopted higher multiplier of 8' which could not be more than 4 looking to the age of the deceased. There is also no scope of reducing the amount of compensation as the deceased was on stable job. Keeping in view the principle laid down in the case of Kerala State Transport Corp. v. Sushma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 the present income of the deceased would be doubled. On calculation the amount would be almost the same. Keeping in view the age of the deceased and the age of the dependents it cannot be said that the amount awarded for the loss of consortium and for the loss of love and affection is inadequate. The compensation awarded is maintained.12. However, as discussed in the earlier matter the Tribunal was not justified in apportioning the liability of the award in two sets of respondents. Since Sita Ram had not contributed to the accident and it is a case of compositive negligence the claimants are entitled to the entire amount of compensation from both the sets of respondents. Award is thus modified that the claimants of appeal No. 519/91 shall get the compensation amount awarded jointly and severely from both the respondents. CLAIM CASE OF MADAN LAL13. Madan Lal was 55 years of age at the time of accident. He had suffered multiple injuries. He has deposed that he had remained on leave for nine months and he was hospitalised for five months and 25 days and his son Sudhir had also remained on leave to serve him. CLAIM CASE OF MADAN LAL13. Madan Lal was 55 years of age at the time of accident. He had suffered multiple injuries. He has deposed that he had remained on leave for nine months and he was hospitalised for five months and 25 days and his son Sudhir had also remained on leave to serve him. According to him, he had suffered fractures. Dr. Madhav Upadhyay, AW 7 has deposed hat he had performed operation on Madan Lal and that Madan Lal had suffered 30 per cent permanent disability in his legs. According to Dr. Upadhyay there were fractures of the right hand and left thigh of Madanlal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,23,000/-, calculated as follows; Mental agony and physical pain - 30,000/- Permanent disability of 20% - 30,000/-. Loss of leave for nine months - 33,000/- and Medical expenses & special diet - 30,000/-. 14. The contention of Mr. Mathur was that the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for 20 per cent permanent disability whereas Dr. Upadhyay had pointed out that the disability was 30 per cent. He also stated that no amount was awarded for the services extended by Sudhir who also remained on leave for a considerable period.15. The medical evidence indicates that there was permanent disability of 30% whereas the Tribunal has kept in view that disability was 20%. The amount under this head deserves to be enhanced. Appellant Madanlal is entitled to a sum of Rs. 45,000/- under this head. Regarding the services rendered by Sudhir Agarwal, AW 6 S/o Madanlal, it may be that Shri Sudhir Agarwal served his father taking leave but there is no justification for awarding any sum on that count. Shri Sudhir Agarwal himself was posted at Jaipur and, therefore, there could not be any difficulty for him in attending his office. It is to be noticed that mother of Sudhir Agarwal was there to serve his father during office time. The Tribunal has not erred when it did not award any sum under this head. On other heads, reasonable sum has been awarded. Thus, the appellant Madan Lal in appeal No. 517/91 is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,38,000/- with interest as directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has erred in apportioning the liability on two sets of respondents. The Tribunal has not erred when it did not award any sum under this head. On other heads, reasonable sum has been awarded. Thus, the appellant Madan Lal in appeal No. 517/91 is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,38,000/- with interest as directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has erred in apportioning the liability on two sets of respondents. Since Madanlal had not contributed to the accident he is entitled to get the entire amount from both the sets of respondents jointly and severely. The award is modified to that extent. CLAIM CASE OF RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH16. Ravindra Kumar has deposed that he had suffered about 27 fractures and he was hospitalised for about two months and then had to take rest at his home for one and half months. He has further stated that nails and plates were fitted in his hand. The medical evidence indicates that there was one fracture of nasal bone and one of right arm. Dr. J.C. Mayangar has deposed that there was only 10 per cent disability because of the injuries suffered by Ravindra Kumar Singh. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as follows : (i) for mental agony & physical pain - Rs. 25,000/-, (ii) for permanent disability of 10% Rs. 15,000/- (iii) for special diet & other expenses - Rs. 5,000/- (iv) for leave period Rs. 15,000/-. 17. It is not proved on record that Ravindra Kumar Singh had suffered as many as 27 fractures. The injury report Ex. P/48 indicates only six injuries. As there was only 10 per cent disability, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- awarded is inadequate. It is proved that Ravindra Kumar Singh remained on leave for three months and therefore 15,000/- has been rightly awarded. It has come in the statement of Dr. Mayangar that Ravindra Kumar Singh will have problem in sitting cross-legged and he would also be in trouble while sitting in toilet. Keeping in view the evidence of Dr. Mayangar I deem it proper to enhance the amount by Rs. 10,000/- for the physical pain and mental agony. Thus a total sum of Rs. 70,000/- is just compensation in the case. The Tribunal has apportioned the liability in two sets of respondents. Keeping in view the evidence of Dr. Mayangar I deem it proper to enhance the amount by Rs. 10,000/- for the physical pain and mental agony. Thus a total sum of Rs. 70,000/- is just compensation in the case. The Tribunal has apportioned the liability in two sets of respondents. As already stated the occupants of the tracker had not contributed to the accident and therefore Ravindra Kumar Singh is entitled to the entire sum from both the sets of respondents jointly and severely. The award is modified.18. Consequently, there is no substance in the appeals Nos. 238, 226, 159 & 160 of 1992 filed by the State of Rajasthan and they are hereby dismissed.19. Appeals No. 516/91, 519/91, 517/91 and 518/91 are allowed in part. The award is modified in this respect that the claimants in all the four appeals shall be entitled to get the entire compensation amount from both the sets of respondents jointly and severely. The respondents from whom the clairripnts realise the amount may recover the amount from the other set of respondents as per the liability fixed by the Tribunal.20. Amount of compensation in claim cases No. 158/85 and 152/85 is enhanced and fixed at Rs. 1,38,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- respectively with interest as directed by the learned Tribunal. The amount shall be paid by account payee cheques only.Appeal Allowed, State Appeal Dismissed. *******