Judgment S. S. Sudhalkar, J. 1. All these appeals f. A. O. Nos.1493 to 1505 of 2000 arise from a common judgment in respect of 13 claim petitions and were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The particulars of these appeals are as under: Appeal No. M. A. C. App. No. Name of deceased/ injured Whether fatal or injured Age Years Compensation awarded (Rs.) 1493 of 2000 105-T Gulzar Singh Died on the spot 38 3,65,000 1502 of 2000 106-T Raj want Kaur -do- 34 2,75,000 1503 of 2000 107-T Pritam Singh -do- 55 2,45,000 1498 of 2000 108-T Gurcharan Singh -do- 56 1,97,000 1499 of 2000 109-T Harnam Kaur -do- 60 95,000 1505 of 2000 110-T Gagandeep Kaur Injured 11 25,000 1504 of 2000 111-T Amandeep Singh Injured 9 25,000 1495 of 2000 112-T Sarabjit Singh Injured 13 1,25,000 1494 of 2000 113-T Avtar Singh Died after five days 45 3,30,000 1497 of 2000 114-T Gurdeep Singh Declared dead on reaching hospital 52 2,45,000 1496 of 2000 115-T Jaswant Singh Died on the spot 35 3,65,000 1500 of 2000 116-T Kaka Singh -do- 10 55,000 1501 of 2000 117-T Guddi Declared dead on reaching hospital 6 55,000 2. The accident took place between bus no. HR 37-1166 owned by the appellant and driven by the proforma respondent and the Trax jeep No. DL 1 C-D 6231 driven by one Samitter Singh. The injured and the deceased were passengers in the jeep. The accident took place on 9.9.1996 at about 10.15 p. m. It is the case of the claimants-respondents that on the fateful evening when the jeep was about 200 yards short of Sarsini bus stand on the Chandigarh-Ambala Road near Lalru, it was being followed by a car. The bus came from the opposite direction and was driven by Bal krishan (now deceased ). It being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came on to the wrong side of the road and hit the jeep. It was contended by the respondents-claimants that the jeep was being driven on the correct side of the road and at slow speed. 3. Amrik Singh, Manjit Singh and Ajit singh were passengers of Maruti car following the jeep. They had witnessed the accident. They were examined as eyewitnesses. Appellant examined the conductor as RW 1 and mechanic as RW 2. 4. 3. Amrik Singh, Manjit Singh and Ajit singh were passengers of Maruti car following the jeep. They had witnessed the accident. They were examined as eyewitnesses. Appellant examined the conductor as RW 1 and mechanic as RW 2. 4. The case of the appellant is that it was a rainy night and when the bus reached near Lalru, the driver of the bus saw that a jeep was coming in rash and negligent manner with four headlights on. The driver of the bus anticipated the danger and stopped the bus on the left side of the road but the driver of the jeep could not control his jeep and hit the jeep against the standing bus and there was no negligence of the bus driver. After recording evidence, the tribunal awarded the amounts as mentioned above. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Appellant has challenged the awards made in the above petitions in these appeals. 5. The first point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the driver of the bus was not negligent. Of course, the bus driver has died subsequently and hence he could not be examined. As mentioned above, the appellant had examined the conductor of the bus, Satinder Singh at RW 1, and mechanic Roshan Lal at RW 2. RW 1 stated in his deposition that the bus left Narnaul at 7.30 p. m. and was bound for Chandigarh. The bus was being driven by Bal Krishan, who died about six months back. He has further stated that the bus reached Panipat at about 1 a. m. on the morning of 9.9.1996. The bus suffered a breakdown on account of slippage of the clutch plates near Gharaunda. This witness then went to Chandigarh to inform about it and returned to the bus along with mechanic Roshan Lal. The mechanic repaired the bus and they set out from Gharaunda at 6 p. m. for Chandigarh. At 10.30 p. m. , the bus reached near Lalru. It is stated that the bus was being driven at a normal speed and a jeep came from the opposite side and it was being driven at a fast speed. The mechanic repaired the bus and they set out from Gharaunda at 6 p. m. for Chandigarh. At 10.30 p. m. , the bus reached near Lalru. It is stated that the bus was being driven at a normal speed and a jeep came from the opposite side and it was being driven at a fast speed. The jeep hit the driver side of the bus and overturned near the bus and the mechanic who was sitting in front seat of the bus and the driver of the bus were injured. Similar is the deposition of Roshan Lal, mechanic, rw2. 6. The depositions of these two witnesses materially differ from the stand taken by the appellant that the bus was stopped by the driver because he had anticipated the accident. This infirmity which goes to the root of the case cannot be overlooked. The contention in written statement that the bus stopped was, therefore, given a go-by by the witnesses of the appellant. The witness of the claimants-respondents Amrik Singh, AW 9, has deposed that the jeep was driven at a slow speed. Looking into the evidence of both the sides and considering the change in the stand taken by the witnesses of the appellant, learned Tribunals finding that the driver of the bus was negligent cannot be said to be not correct. 7. The question regarding contributory negligence is raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, it is not material so far as the claimants-respondents are concerned. The claims are regarding the death and injuries caused to the passengers of the jeep and the passengers cannot be said to be guilty of contributory negligence. This can at the most be a case of composite negligence. In these circumstances, if at all, the jeep driver is also held to be negligent, the claimants can claim the amount from one of the tortfeasors leaving that said tortfeasor to have his remedy of recovery of the amount which can be recovered from the other tortfeasor. 8. The case put up by the appellant is that the jeep was driven with four headlights. Learned Tribunal has found that the photograph does not disclose that the jeep was having four headlights. However, this is a case of two fast going vehicles dashing each other from the opposite direction. 8. The case put up by the appellant is that the jeep was driven with four headlights. Learned Tribunal has found that the photograph does not disclose that the jeep was having four headlights. However, this is a case of two fast going vehicles dashing each other from the opposite direction. The claimants evidence is to the effect that the driver of the jeep was not negligent. It is not possible to draw a line of distinction between the two fast going vehicles. 9. In the case of Amthiben Maganlal V/s. uperintending Geophysicist, O. N. G. C. , 976 ACJ 72 (Gujarat), it has been observed by the D. B. of the High Court as under: "when a man drives a motor car along the road, he is bound to anticipate that there may be people or animals or things at any moment, and he is bound to go not faster than will permit of his stopping or deflecting his course at any time to avoid anything he sees after he has seen it. If there is any difficulty in the way of his seeing, as for example, a fog, he must go slower in consequence. Even in such a collision between two fast moving vehicles there would be clearly a dilemma situation, either the driver did not keep a sufficient look out or that if he did keep a good look out, possibly he was going too fast for the look out to be kept so as to avoid such collision. It was a night journey and specially when the jeep driver had seen such a large truck coming almost in the middle of the road with full headlights on, he could have if he was on the proper look out, as deposed by Mr. Prajapati, taken ordinary precaution to swerve his vehicle to the left by not persisting in his driving in the tar road for avoiding collision with this oncoming truck. Therefore, on the aforesaid evidence there can be no other conclusion than the one that either the jeep driver was not keeping sufficient look out or that he was going too fast for the look out to be kept so as to avoid any such collision, and in either case, he was also negligent along with the offending truck driver. Therefore, on the aforesaid evidence there can be no other conclusion than the one that either the jeep driver was not keeping sufficient look out or that he was going too fast for the look out to be kept so as to avoid any such collision, and in either case, he was also negligent along with the offending truck driver. No doubt in such cases the offending truck driver had greater duty and the larger responsibility because of the larger size of his vehicle and the higher power of his engine compared to the small jeep vehicle with small horse power of its engine. " However, in the present case, we are not required to go into the question of negligence by the driver of jeep or the percentage thereof because whatever may be the consequence, the bus driver cannot be said to be not negligent. The compensation can be recovered by claimants from any of the tortfeasors. 10. In view of the above reasons, we find that the Tribunal cannot be said to have erred in holding that the appellant is liable to pay the compensation. 11. The next point argued by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the compensation which has been awarded is on a higher side. It has been observed by the Tribunal that the deceased and injured all belonged to a extended family and the menfolk of the extended family. Gulzar singh and Pritam Singh (deceased) were small time building contractors. Avtar singh and Gurcharan Singh were mistryl masons, Jaswant Singh (deceased) was a shopkeeper, Gurdeep Singh (deceased)was a truck owner and Rajwant Kaur and haraam Kaur (deceased) were housewives. Kaka and Guddi were minor children. Gagandeep Kaur and Amandeep Singh were also minors while Sarabjit Singh was a young adult. The Tribunal also found that though each of them had made high claim for compensation, none of them had placed on record any documentary evidence to prove the exact income of the deceased. The statements of accounts, income tax returns or someother reliable documents, which could have been corroborative evidence to the oral evidence adduced by the claimants-respondents is not on the record. The Tribunal has, therefore, not accepted the bare statement of the witnesses regarding income. The statements of accounts, income tax returns or someother reliable documents, which could have been corroborative evidence to the oral evidence adduced by the claimants-respondents is not on the record. The Tribunal has, therefore, not accepted the bare statement of the witnesses regarding income. In such cases, the loss of income has to be assessed from a reasonable appreciation of evidence that is before the tribunal because when corroborative evidence is not produced, the high figure of alleged income cannot be accepted. At the same time, it cannot be accepted that they were not earning anything. 12. Deceased Gulzar Singh and Raj-want Kaur were husband and wife. So far as their cases (M. A. C. Nos 105-T and 106-T of 1996) are concerned, the claimants are the children. Gulzar Singhs income has been assessed at Rs.3,000 per month, 1/3rd of the amount has been deducted as his own expenses. Rajwant Kaurs income is assessed at Rs.1,500 and it has been held by the Tribunal that she was doing tailoring work. The multiplier of 15 years has been adopted in both these cases. Rs.5,000 each has been awarded for transporting bodies and last rites, etc. 13. In M. A. C. No.107-T deceased is pritam Singh. His income is also found to be Rs.3,000 and 1/3rd had been deducted. The submission regarding higher amount of income has not been accepted. Multiplier of 10 years has been adopted. 14. Similarly, in M. A. C. No. .108-T income of Gurcharan Singh (deceased) is held to be Rs.3,000 and multiplier of 8 years has been adopted. 15. Gagandeep Kaur and Amandeep singh were injured in the accident. Their claim petitions are M. A. C. Nos.110-T and 111-T. The witness examined by Gagandeep Kaur is her uncle Gurbachan Singh, aw 4. He has testified regarding her injuries and stated that she had received injuries on her neck, head and stitches were applied on her head and face. She was treated at the Civil Hospital, Ambala and referred to PGI, Chandigarh where she remained for 4/5 days. The case history prepared at the time of treatment at PGI has been relied as corroborated evidence. It is also considered by the Tribunal that she must have suffered pain on account of the injuries and her guardian must have also spent some money on medicines and transportation. The case history prepared at the time of treatment at PGI has been relied as corroborated evidence. It is also considered by the Tribunal that she must have suffered pain on account of the injuries and her guardian must have also spent some money on medicines and transportation. It may be noted that in such emergent cases, money is required to be spent for medicine, transportation, etc. and at that time, what is important is not to save money but to save the person. Persons are required to sit in the hospital, On many times, persons sit in shifts and they have to incur expenses for coming and going to the hospital. The Tribunal has awarded rs.25,000 to the injured-claimant, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 16. Similarly, Amandeep Singh had received injuries on his jaw and both bones of right leg were fractured. Stitches were also applied on his neck and head. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Ambala and then to PGI, Chandigarh for treatment. He remained admitted for 4/5 days. He has also been awarded Rs.25,000. This amount is also not on higher side in view of the injuries sustained by him and the reasons mentioned in the case of Gagandeep Kaur. 17. The third injured is Sarabjit Singh. His claim petition is M. A. C. No.112-T of 1996. He had stated that he became unconscious after the accident and later learnt that he was treated at Civil Hospital, Ambala and then at PGI. He remained admitted in PGI for seven days. Plaster was applied on his left forearm and his jaw was also fractured which was tied up with a wire. Further, as a result of the accident, he was unable to see from his left eye. He has stated that he was earning Rs.6,000 per month by way of his working as a carpenter and now he is not able to work. 18. He has examined Balwan Singh aw 10, Ophthalmic Assistant, who testified that he was contact lens specialist and worked with Dr. Rajiv Sood at Kaithal. He was examined by Dr. Sood and it was found that there was no vision and no projection of light and he has suffered total optic atrophy because of damage to the optic nerve. The doctors slip regarding the same is Exh. Rajiv Sood at Kaithal. He was examined by Dr. Sood and it was found that there was no vision and no projection of light and he has suffered total optic atrophy because of damage to the optic nerve. The doctors slip regarding the same is Exh. A-l which shows that there was no perception of projection of light and the condition was incurable. There is also on record Exh. A-21, the patient ticket of PGI. In that there is provisional diagnosis of optic nerve trauma. Exh. A-22 is the certificate regarding his orthopaedic injury in which it was mentioned that he had suffered fracture of mandible and fracture of both bones of left arm. The Tribunal has awarded the amount awardable to him as under: (a) Loss of vision of left eye Rs.1,00,000 (b) Pain and suffering Rs.10,000 (c) Medical treatment and other expenses including bills of rs.885 Rs.15,000 total Rs.1,25,000 19. We find that the Tribunal cannot be said to have given an exorbitant amount. Further grounds such as loss of income, etc. , are not considered and we do not find that the award is at all on the higher side. 20. M. A. C. No.113-T is regarding deceased Avtar Singh who died after 5 days in the PGI, Chandigarh. His income is also assessed at Rs.3,000 per month and multiplier of 15 years has been applied. The award cannot be said to be on higher side. 21. M. A. C. No.114-T is regarding the death of Gurdeep Singh in the accident. His income is assessed at Rs.3,000 per month. However, his contribution to the family is held to be Rs.1,000. Multiplier of 12 years has been rightly applied by the tribunal and, therefore, the award cannot be said to be exorbitant regarding this claim also. 22. Similarly, income of Jaswant Singh (deceased) has been assessed at Rs.3,000 per month. Multiplier of 15 years has been adopted. His claim petition is M. A. C. No.115-T. 23. Regarding the minor Kaka Singh, the claim petition is M. A. C. No.116-T of 1996. The no fault liability amount of rs.50,000 has been considered in view of the fact that the deceased was a minor. Rs.5,000 has been awarded for other expenses. A person who is a minor must not be earning during his minority but with the increase in age he starts helping the family. The no fault liability amount of rs.50,000 has been considered in view of the fact that the deceased was a minor. Rs.5,000 has been awarded for other expenses. A person who is a minor must not be earning during his minority but with the increase in age he starts helping the family. Further he will earn in future and, therefore, he cannot be said to be a totally useless person and it will be harsh and imprudent to hold that there is no monetary loss. Therefore, the award in this case is also not on the higher side. 24. Similarly is the case regarding the deceased Guddi for whom M. A. C. No.117-T has been filed. 25. In view of the above reasons, we do not find that the awards of the Claims Tribunal deserve to be set aside or modified. These appeals are without merit and are, therefore, dismissed. Appeals dismissed.