V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) ALL these CMAs. , Cross-objections and the CRP can conveniently be disposed of by this common judgment as they involve common questions of fact and law. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are as follows: On 22. 1. 1994 a group of persons from Vannel (B) Village in Armoor Mandal, were going in a jeep bearing No. AIL 4948 to Armoor to give representation to the Depot manager of A. P. State Road Transport corporation (APSRTC) for bus conveyance to that village. When the jeep reached the outskirts of Sirampur Village, a lorry bearing no. AP 25/t 1177, it was alleged, came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the jeep. As a result of the accident 11 persons died instantaneously and two persons received injuries. The injured as well as the dependents of the deceased filed as many as 12 OPs before the Motor Vehicle Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-the Court of District judge, Nizamabad, being OP No. 61 of 1994 and Batch. ( 3 ) 3. The jeep was insured with the united India Insurance Company Limited and the lorry was insured with the New india Assurance Company Limited, which were arrayed as respondents 5 and 3 respectively in O. P. No. 61 of 1994 out of which CMA No. 2009 of 1999 arises. Be that as it may, the owners of the lorry and the jeep and the two insurers opposed the ops filed by the claimants inter alia denying any negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry or the jeep. The Tribunal dealt the cases and framed the following issues in all the OPs. 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry AP 25/t 1177 or the driver of the jeep AIL 4948 ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount, and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? ( 4 ) THE first claimant in O. P. No. 61 of 1994 examined herself as P. W. I and examined one Balaiah as P. W. 2 besides marking Exs. A. l to A. 28. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount, and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? ( 4 ) THE first claimant in O. P. No. 61 of 1994 examined herself as P. W. I and examined one Balaiah as P. W. 2 besides marking Exs. A. l to A. 28. The Assistant in the office of the United India Insurance company was examined as R. W. 1, and in some other cases R. W. 2, who is Investigator- cum-Surveyor of the Insurance Company, was examined and Exs. B. 1 to B. 13 were marked. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence and placing reliance on Exs. B. 6 and B. 7 came to the conclusion that the drivers of the jeep and the lorry were guilty of contributing negligence in the ratio of 50:50. The Tribunal also considered the evidence lead by the claimants with regard to the income of the deceased/insure and applied appropriate multipliers following the judgment of this Court in Bhagwan Das v. Mohd. Arif, 1987 (2) ALT 137 , and awarded appropriate amounts. The details of the various OPs, corresponding CMAs, amounts claimed and the amounts awarded are as under: