JUDGMENT Jha, J. -- 1. Misc. Appeals No. 400/96, 401196, 402/96, 403/96 and 404/96 are filed by the insurance company and Misc. Appeal No. 426/96 and 35/97 are filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. In Misc. Appeal No. 402/96 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 No. 400/96, 401/96, 402/96, 403/96 and 404/96 : 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 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. 403/96 insurance company has also impleaded owner of the bus as well as the 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 son of Satyendra Singh Chouhan. The bus was hired for transporting marriage party from Chachoda to Mehgaon. A truck bearing registration No. MP07B/7778 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and has dashed against the bus on the driver side, which resulted into death of Surendra Singh Bhadoriya, Kallu @ Kalyansingh and Gajanand, and Dr. Mahendra Singh Chouhan and. Mahendra Jain were injured. Drivers of both the vehicles died in the accident. . 4. A W 2 Ramanand Saxena in Claim Case No. 70/93 has deposed that the truck has dashed against the bus, which resulted into death of bus driver Gajanand, Contractor of Shajapur, and Kalyansingh in the accident and Mahendra Jain and Mahendra Singh have suffered injuries. Evidence led before 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, Claims Tribunal has rightly held that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, therefore, the contention of 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. In the absence of any evidence against the driver of the bus, Claims Tribunal has rightly held that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, therefore, the contention of 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 the negligence is on the part of the truck driver, no liability can he 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. 402/96 cross objection has been filed by claimants Smt. Prabha Bhadoriya and others. Smt. Prabha Bhadoriya and others had filed Claim Case No. 73/93 and Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 1,20,200/-. Clalmants submitted that this award is very low, as Claims Tribunal has not considered the evidence on record. Evidence has been led by Smt. 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. A W 1 Smt. Prabha Bhadoriya has deposed that her husband was 'B' class contractor. A certificate to that effect Ex. P-1 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 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 accident. 7. Now the question involved in the case is as to quantum of compensation. . 8. A W 1 Smt. Prabha Bhadoriya has also deposed that her husband was earning Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month. In our opinion, Claims Tribunal has erred in holding that the income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000/- per month. 7. Now the question involved in the case is as to quantum of compensation. . 8. A W 1 Smt. Prabha Bhadoriya has also deposed that her husband was earning Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month. In our opinion, Claims Tribunal has erred in holding that the income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000/- per month. Considering the evidence on record, we accept the lower figure of income of the deceased at Rs. 50,000/- per annum. Deceased is survived by his widow, sons and daughter. Two sons are already employed. In the circumstances of the case, since at the time of death of Surendra Singh, he 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/- (figure is rounded to Rs. 4,34,000/-). To this amount further sum of Rs. 16,000/- is added towards funeral expenses, loss of estate, etc. etc. Thus, the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 4,50,000/-. On enhanced amount of compensation, respondent-claimants will also be entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing cross-objection. The amount shall be payable to the widow of deceased Surendra Singh. Misc. Appeal No. 426/1996 : 9. This appeal is filed by claimant Mahendra Kumar Jain for enhancement of compensation, Mahendra Kumar Jain has claimed that he has suffered Compound Inter Condylor 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%. 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 earning for a period of 10 months for which he has not worked, i.e., Rs. 50,000/-. 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 yearly 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. 50,000/-. 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 yearly 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/- towards loss of earning and Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering be added and the compensation is determined at Rs. 3,12,000/-. The appellant will also be entitled for interest at the rate of 6% 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 road was inserted and bone was grafted. He has suffered 20% 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/per year. Considering the overall evidence on record, there is no reason to disbelieve this evidence. Considering his 20% partial permanent disability yearly loss of earning is Rs, 12,000/- per year. 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 Ex. P-67, 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 six months. The claimant will be further entitled for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of earning for six months. Adding this amount of Rs. P-67, 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 six months. The claimant will be further entitled for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of earning for six months. Adding this amount of Rs. 30,000/-, the total compensation is determined at Rs. 2,51,000/-. The claimant will be further entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of appeal. 11. In the result, Misc. Appeals filed by insurance company (Misc. Appeals No. 400, 401, 402, 403 and 404 of 1996) are dismissed. Cross-objection in Misc. Appeal No. 402/96 is allowed. Misc. Appeals No. 426/96 and 35/97 are partly allowed as indicated above, In the circumstances of case, there shall be no order as to costs. .....................