S. S. JHA, J. ( 1 ) MISC. Appeal Nos. 400, by the insurance company and Misc. Ap-401, 402, 403 and 404 of 1996 are filed peal Nos. 426 of 1996 and 35 of 1997 are filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. In Misc. Appeal No. 402 of 1996 cross-objection for enhancement of compensation is filed by the claimants. Since all the appeals arise out of common award, therefore, these appeals are disposed of by a common judgment. Misc. Appeal Nos. 400, 401, 402, 403 and 404 of 1996: ( 2 ) IN these appeals, insurance company has submitted that this is a case of composite negligence, therefore, the owner, driver and insurance company of bus in which the claimants were travelling were necessary party to the petition and there should be apportionment of compensation between the owner, driver and insurance company of both the vehicles. In Misc. Appeal No. 403 of 1996 insurance company has also impleaded owner of the bus as well as truck. ( 3 ) FACTS of the case are that on 12. 6. 1993 claimants were travelling in a bus bearing registration No. URB 7882 to attend the marriage of the son of Satyendra Singh chouhan. Bus was hired for transporting marriage party from Chachoda to Mehgaon. A truck bearing registration No. MP 07-B 7778 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus on the driver side, which resulted in the death of Surendra Singh Bhadoriya, Kallu alias kalyansingh and Gajanand and Dr. Mahendra Singh Chouhan and Mahendra Jain were injured. Drivers of both the vehicles died in the accident. ( 4 ) RAMANAND Saxena, AW 2, in Claim case No. 70 of 1993, has deposed that the truck dashed against the bus, which resulted in death of bus driver Gajanand, contractor of Shajapur and Kalyansingh in the accident and Mahendra Jain and Dr. Mahendra Singh have suffered injuries. Evidence led before the Claims Tribunal clearly indicates that there was negligence on the part of truck driver. There is no evidence on record to demonstrate that bus driver was negligent in driving his bus. Mahendra Singh have suffered injuries. Evidence led before the Claims Tribunal clearly indicates that there was negligence on the part of truck driver. There is no evidence on record to demonstrate that bus driver was negligent in driving his bus. In the absence of any evidence against the driver of the bus, the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for appellant insurance company cannot be accepted that the compensation should be apportioned between the owner, driver and insurance company of the two vehicles. Once finding is recorded that negligence is on the part of the truck driver, no liability can be fastened either on the insurance company or on the owner and bus driver, therefore, appeals of insurance company have no merit and they are liable to be dismissed. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, in Misc. Appeal No. 402 of 1996 cross-objection has been filed by claimants Prabha Bhadoriya and others. Prabha Bhadoriya and others had filed claim Case No. 73 of 1993 and Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 1,20,200. Claimants submitted that this award is very low, as claims Tribunal has not considered the evidence on record. Evidence has been led by Prabha Bhadoriya, who is the widow of deceased Surendra Singh Bhadoriya and remaining claimants are sons and daughter of the deceased, who died in the accident. ( 6 ) PRABHA Bhadoriya, AW 1, has deposed that her husband was 'b' class contractor. A certificate to that effect, Exh. P1, has been issued. This witness has deposed that her husband used to save Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 60,000 per year. Claims Tribunal has rejected the contention on the ground that the contractor certificate is of the year 1978 and the accident took place after 15 years, therefore, there is no evidence on record that deceased Surendra Singh was a registered contractor on the date of accident. However, it may be mentioned that in another claim case witness Ramanand saxena. has categorically deposed that one contractor of Shajapur also died in the accident. There is no cross-examination on this point, therefore, Claims Tribunal has committed error in holding that deceased was not the contractor on the date of the accident. ( 7 ) NOW the question involved in the case is as to quantum of compensation. has categorically deposed that one contractor of Shajapur also died in the accident. There is no cross-examination on this point, therefore, Claims Tribunal has committed error in holding that deceased was not the contractor on the date of the accident. ( 7 ) NOW the question involved in the case is as to quantum of compensation. ( 8 ) PRABHA Bhadoriya, AW 1, has also deposed that her husband was earning rs. 4,000 to Rs. 5,000 per month. In our opinion, Tribunal has erred in holding that the income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000 per month. Considering the evidence on record, we accept lower figure of income of the deceased at Rs. 50,000 per annum. Deceased is survived by his widow, sons and daughter. Two of his sons are already employed. In the circumstances of the case, since at the time of death Surendra singh was aged about 50 years, therefore, after deducting one-third amount on his personal expenses and applying multiplier of 13, the compensation is determined at rs. 4,33,329 (which figure is rounded to rs. 4,34,000 ). To this amount further sum of Rs. 16,000 is added towards funeral expenses, loss to the estate, etc. Thus, the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 4,50,000. On enhanced amount of compensation, respondents-claimants will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from date of filing cross-objection. The amount shall be payable to the widow of deceased Surendra Singh. Misc. Appeal No. 426 of 1996: ( 9 ) THIS appeal is filed by the claimant mahendra Kumar Jain for enhancement of compensation. Mahendra Kumar Jain has claimed that he has suffered compound intercondylar fracture of right femur and he had to undergo three operations and there is shortening of leg by 1 1/2 inches. Thus, shortening of leg amounts to partial permanent disability by 20 per cent. Mahendra Kumar Jain has deposed that he was carrying on business of shoe shop and he was earning around Rs. 5,000 to rs. 6,000 per month and he could not work for 10 months. Therefore, we hold that the income of Mahendra Kumar Jain was rs. 5,000 per month and he will be entitled for compensation on account of loss of earnings for a period of 10 months for which he has not worked, i. e. , Rs. 50,000. 5,000 to rs. 6,000 per month and he could not work for 10 months. Therefore, we hold that the income of Mahendra Kumar Jain was rs. 5,000 per month and he will be entitled for compensation on account of loss of earnings for a period of 10 months for which he has not worked, i. e. , Rs. 50,000. The claimant has also filed medical bills amounting to Rs. 53,290. He will also be entitled for this amount. Claimant will be further entitled for Rs. 5,000 towards pain and suffering. His income is Rs. 60,000 per year and on account of permanent partial disability he has suffered loss of earning at Rs. 12,000 per year. He was aged about 30 years at the time of accident, therefore, multiplier of 17 will be applicable. On applying multiplier, amount of compensation is Rs. 2,04,000 and to this amount, amount of medical bills Rs. 53,290, Rs. 50,000 for loss of earnings and Rs. 5,000 towards pain and suffering be added and the compensation is determined at Rs. 3,12,000. Appellant will also be entitled for interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing the appeal. Misc. Appeal No. 35 of 1997: ( 10 ) THIS appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation by Dr. Mahendra Singh chouhan. Dr. Mahendra Singh Chouhan in the accident has suffered fracture of tibia and. fibula bone and he was admitted to j. A. Group of Hospitals and thereafter he was treated at Choithram Hospital at indore. He was treated for a period of four months and he was operated and iron rod was inserted and bone was grafted. He has suffered 20 per cent partial permanent disability. He was aged about 42 years at the time of incident. As regards his income, it is stated that he was RMP doctor practising at Binaganj. This witness has deposed that his income was Rs. 5,000 per month and annual income was Rs. 60,000. Considering the overall evidence on record, there is no reason to disbelieve this evidence. Considering his 20 per cent partial permanent disability yearly loss of earnings is rs. 12,000. On applying multiplier of 15, the amount of compensation comes to rs. 1,80,000. The claimant will be further entitled for medical expenses amounting to Rs. 36,000 and further sum of Rs. 5,000 towards pain and suffering. From perusal of document, Exh. Considering his 20 per cent partial permanent disability yearly loss of earnings is rs. 12,000. On applying multiplier of 15, the amount of compensation comes to rs. 1,80,000. The claimant will be further entitled for medical expenses amounting to Rs. 36,000 and further sum of Rs. 5,000 towards pain and suffering. From perusal of document, Exh. P67, the appellant was treated between 14. 6. 1993 till the date of issue of certificate, i. e. , 5. 10. 1993 and he was further advised for six months' rest. Thus, he remained permanently disabled for a period of 6 months. Claimant will be further entitled for a sum of Rs. 30,000 for loss of earnings for 6 months. Adding this amount of Rs. 30,000, total compensation is determined at Rs. 2,51,000. The claimant will be further entitled for interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of appeal. ( 11 ) IN the result, misc. appeals filed by insurance company (Misc. Appeals Nos. 400, 401, 402, 403 and 404 of 1996) are dismissed. Cross-objection in Misc. Appeal No. 402 of 1996 is allowed. Misc. Appeal Nos. 426 of 1996 and 35 of 1997 are partly allowed as indicated above. In the circumstances of case, there shall be no order as to costs. Orders accordingly. .