JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a claimants appeal and has been directed against the award dated 2.12.1991 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short the Tribunal), vide which the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till payment in favour of the petitioners-appellants and against respondents 4 to 7 and the amount of compensation was to be paid jointly and severally. The claim petition was however dismissed against claimants 1 to 3. 2. The claim petition was filed by Ram Nath Mehta, the husband of the deceased, Pankaj Mehta and Master Neeraj Mehta, the sons of the deceased and they claimed compensation vis-a-vis Smt. Subhash Kumari Mehta who died on 13.11.1989 on account of the injuries received in a vehicle accident which took place on 7.11.1989. 3. It is alleged by the claimants that on 7.11.1989, Smt. Subhash Kumari Mehta who was working as a Teacher, was returning from Government High School, Jalbehra, to her house at Manauli House, Ambala City, on Hero Majestic No. HRX-7888. When she reached adjacent to New Green Market Ambala City, between over bridge and Manav Chowk, a motor cycle No. HNC 5577 driven by Mohinder Singh respondent No. 1 came from the opposite side i.e. overbridge side at a rash speed. The driver was driving the motor vehicle in a negligent manner. The right side leg guard of the motor cycle struck against the moped of Subhash Kumari, who fell down on the road. At the same movement, a tractor trailor bearing No. HRX-2667 which was being rashly driven, came from the side of Manav Chowk, Hisar and run over Smt. Subhash Kumari Mehta. She was removed to Civil Hospital, Ambala City, in a rickshaw. From there, she was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where she died on 13.11.1989. Karnail Singh-respondent No. 4 was the driver of the tractor. Smt. Subhash Kumari Mehta was allegedly 49 years of age and she being a teacher in Haryana Education Department was drawing Rs. 2070/- per month as salary alleging that the monthly contribution of Smt. Subhash Kumari Mehta to her family was more than Rs. 1000/-. The claimants made a prayer that they should be awarded compensation of Rs. 4 lacs. 4. The claim petition was contested by the respondents. 2070/- per month as salary alleging that the monthly contribution of Smt. Subhash Kumari Mehta to her family was more than Rs. 1000/-. The claimants made a prayer that they should be awarded compensation of Rs. 4 lacs. 4. The claim petition was contested by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 i.e. the driver and owner of the motor cycle filed a joint written statement and they took the stand that Smt. Subhash Kumari Mehta while returning from school was overtaking the tractor trailor but while doing so, she became nervous and fell on account of her unbalance and was run over by the tractor- trailor. Respondent No. 1 was coming from the opposite side. He stopped his vehicle on seeing Smt. Subash Kumari Mehta lying on the road as she was known to him being a wife of his friend. Respondent No. 1 totally denied his involvement in the accident. They also pleaded that Smt. Subhash Kumari Mehta was taken to Civil Hospital in an auto rickshaw by Mohinder Singh-respondent No. 1 in the company of one Smt. Surjit Kaur and later on gave information of the accident to Mr. Mehta, the husband of the deceased at his house. It was on his information that Mr. Ram Nath Mehta accompanied by his son Pankaj Mehta rushed to Civil Hospital, Ambala City. Respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company in its written statement pleaded that the petitioners have coined a cock and bull story and the claim petition is not maintainable against the answering respondents 1 to 3. 5. Joint written statement was filed on behalf of respondents 4, 5 and 6 and their stand was that Karnail Singh - respondent was driving his loaded tractor-trailor on a very low speed while going on Hisar road from the side of Manav Chowk towards over bridge. In the meantime, a lady tried to over take the tractor-trailor. In the process of overtaking, a motor cycle No. HNC-5577 driven by respondent No. 1 came from the side of over bridge at a high speed and while the motor cycle was over taking, a truck coming from the same side dashed against the moped. As a result of the impact, the deceased fell down on the left side of the road and struck against the tractor-trailor beyond the knowledge of the answering respondent No. 4 Karnail Singh. As a result of the impact, the deceased fell down on the left side of the road and struck against the tractor-trailor beyond the knowledge of the answering respondent No. 4 Karnail Singh. Immediately on coming to know of the accident, he halted his tractor and removed the injured in a Matador to Civil Hospital, Ambala City, and gave information of the accident personally to the husband of the deceased. Respondent No. 7 - National Insurance Company pleaded that there was no negligence or rashness on the part of the tractor-trailor driver, therefore, the claim petition should fail vis-a-vis respondents 4 to 7. 6. The Tribunal framed the following issues :- "1. Whether the death of Smt. Subhash Kumari Mehta took place due to rash and negligent driving of motor cycle No.HNC-5577 by respondent No. 1 and rash and negligent driving of tractor-trailor No. HRX-2667 by respondent No. 4 ? OPP. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation. If so, how much and from whom ? OPP 3. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder of causes of action ? OPP 4. Whether the liability of respondent No. 3 is limited to a particular amount, as alleged ? OPR 5. Relief." 7. Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence and on the conclusion of the proceedings, it was observed by the Tribunal that the death of Smt. Subhash Kumari Mehta has not taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of motor cycle of Mohinder Singh Bagga and of the tractor-trailor by Karnail Singh i.e. respondents 4 and 1 respectively, therefore, issue No. 1 was decided against the claimants-petitioners and in favour of the respondents. Under issue No. 2, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the petitioners-claimants and this amount was fastened upon respondents 4 to 7 under no fault liability. Issues 3 and 4 were decided against the respondents and finally the Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000/- as compensation with costs and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the institution of the claim petition till payment in favour of the claimants and against respondents 4 to 7 jointly and severally. 8. The claimants feeling not satisfied with the award of the Tribunal, have filed the present appeal. 9. I have heard Mr. H.S. Gill, Advocate, for the appellants and Mr. 8. The claimants feeling not satisfied with the award of the Tribunal, have filed the present appeal. 9. I have heard Mr. H.S. Gill, Advocate, for the appellants and Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate, for the Insurance Company and with their assistance I have gone through the record of the case. 10. It may be mentioned here that a major fire broke out in the complex of the High Court and substantial damage was done to the record, as a result of which, the record of the present case also was burnt along with the record of the trial Court. The file was reconstructed to the best possible extent. I am disposing of this appeal with the help of constructed record and have also taken the copies of the evidence and documents from the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants. 11. The case set up by the appellants-claimants is that the driver of the motor cycle i.e. Mohinder Singh caused the accident when the leg guard of the motor cycle hit against the moped of the deceased-Smt. Subhash Kumari Mehta. The stand of respondent No. 1 is that his vehicle was never involved in the accident. He was a symapthiser for the lady. He took her to the hospital and informed her relatives. The accident has been caused by Karnail Singh-driver of the tractor-trailor. The third version is that the accident has been caused by Mohinder Singh-respondent No. 1 and when the motor cycle fell on the ground, it came in contact with the tractor-trailor. Now, it is to be seen which version is more probable and confirms the standard of preponderance of evidence. Pankaj Mehta-petitioner No. 2 appeared as PW5. According to this witness, on 7.11.1989 at about 4 p.m., he had gone to Zimidara petrol pump for filling petrol in his scooter he saw his mother returning from school and she was ahead of him. She was going on the left side of the road on a Luna at a moderate speed and in the meanwhile, the motor cycle came from the opposite side and tractor-trailor hit her Luna, as a result of which, his mother fell on the road. It has also come in the statement of Pankaj Mehta, the son of the deceased that in the meanwhile, the tractor-trailor came there. It overtook him and crushed his mother when she was lying on the ground. It has also come in the statement of Pankaj Mehta, the son of the deceased that in the meanwhile, the tractor-trailor came there. It overtook him and crushed his mother when she was lying on the ground. He further deposed that the tractor-trailor was also moving at a rash speed. Further, it was coming from the wrong side and hit against the moped of his mother. Thus, from the statement of Pankaj Mehta, it is abundantly clear that the accident in this case had taken place on account of two factors, i.e. with the impact of motor cycle and secondly with the impact of tractor-trailor. Karnail Singh - respondent No. 4 has not come in the witness box to rebut the statement of Pankaj Mehta. However, Mohinder Singh - respondent No. 1 appeared as his own witness as RW 4 and he has stated that he was going on his motor cycle from the side of over bridge to Manav Chowk, Ambala City. In the meanwhile, tractor-trailor came from the opposite side. Mrs. Subhash Kumari Mehta was also coming from the opposite side and she was overtaking the tractor-trailor. She got nervous and fell down on the road and the tractor- trailor driver tried to save her but the front wheel of the tractor-trailor passed over her body. He parked his motor cycle on the left side of the road and went to help her as she was already known to her. In the meanwhile, Surjit Kaur came there. He and Surjit Kaur put the injured in an auto rickshaw. Surjit Kaur was asked to accompany the injured to Civil Hospital while he went to the house of Mr. Mehta, the husband of Mrs. Subhash Kumari Mehta - the deceased, to inform her husband of the accident. It has been admitted by Mohinder Singh that he was challaned in connection with the said accident and his motor cycle was also taken into possession. It is also correct that Mohinder Singh has never lodged any report with any authority that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Surjit Kaur also appeared in the witness box as RW3. According to her, she saw the lady lying in an injured condition. In the meanwhile, Mohinder Singh-respondent No. 1 came there. Then she and Mohinder Singh took the injured to the Civil Hospital, Ambala. Surjit Kaur also appeared in the witness box as RW3. According to her, she saw the lady lying in an injured condition. In the meanwhile, Mohinder Singh-respondent No. 1 came there. Then she and Mohinder Singh took the injured to the Civil Hospital, Ambala. She remained in the hospital with the injured for 3/4 days. Though police came in the hospital but her statement was not recorded. It appears that Surjit Kaur wanted to help Mohinder Singh-respondent No. 1 unnecessarily. She has forged the material particulars when she stated that she and Mohinder Singh accompanied the injured to the hospital. On the contrary, the stand of Mohinder Singh is that the lady alone went to the hospital and he went to the house of Mr. Mehta to inform him about this incident. How Mohinder Singh was known to the family of Mr. Mehta was a mystery. The oral evidence is always exaggerated. If the evidence of 3 witnesses is read in depth, it can easily be concluded that at first the moped of Mrs. Subhash Kumari Mehta came into contact with the motor cycle. The moped is a very light vehicle as compared to a motor cycle which was at a high speed. Resultantly, the moped fell on the ground. Thus, it is a case of dual negligence on the part of Mohinder Singh and on the part of Karnail Singh. Even if I ignore the statement of claimant No. 2 on the ground that he is a chance witness and that he is a related witness, still I am in a position to formulate an opinion that this accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of two persons, firstly of Mohinder Singh and thereafter of Karnail Singh. The Tribunal has given wrong reasoning to hold that the claimants have not been able to prove the negligence on the part of the offending drivers. In this view of the matter, I reverse the findings of the Tribunal on issue No. 1. With regard to the amount of compensation, it is proved on record that the deceased was a Teacher working in a Government School. She was getting a salary of Rs. 2070/-. After deducting her personal expenses, she must be contributing not less than Rs. 1000/- per month. She must be preparing the meals for her family. With regard to the amount of compensation, it is proved on record that the deceased was a Teacher working in a Government School. She was getting a salary of Rs. 2070/-. After deducting her personal expenses, she must be contributing not less than Rs. 1000/- per month. She must be preparing the meals for her family. Deceased was 49 years of age at the time of her death. She was to serve in the Government School at least for 6 years. Keeping in view her monetary contribution and contribution in kind, I am inclined to award a sum of Rs. 80,000/- by way of compensation to all the claimants, besides interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. 50% of the compensation amount shall be paid by respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally and 50% by respondents 4 to 7 jointly and severally as I have held above it is a case of composite liability on the part of the drivers of the motor cycle and the tractor-trailor. The findings of the Tribunal on issue No. 2 is modified as indicated above. 12. The net result is that this appeal is partly allowed and a sum of Rs. 80,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of petition till payment. The amount of compensation shall be paid 50% severally and jointly by respondents 1 to 3 and 50% severally and jointly by respondents 4 to 7. No order as to costs. The amount of compensation awarded, shall be paid within 2 months in equal shares to the claimants. The amount falling to the share of the minor shall remain lying in a scheduled bank till he attains the age of majority. Appeal partly allowed.