JUDGMENT 1. - These (11) appeals filed by National Insurance Co. and so also by claimants since arising out of common Award dated 25.10.1996 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Spl. Judge, Dacoity Affected Area) Bharatpur in MAC 2/1991 to 6/1991 and 16/1991, were heard together and are disposed of by this judgment. 2. Common Award impugned relates to self same accident having taken place on 13.8.1988 near village Tyoga district Bharatpur, wherein offending Bus RS1) 3559 and Maruti Van RPE 4899 (Carrying family members of Jamnadevi, along with Mohanlal, Anil Garg and Archna as passengers while going from Jaipur to Mathura) collided each others as a result where of Jamnadevi, Anil Garg, Kumari Archna (aged 48, 25 and 10 years respectively) died while Sheela Garg and Mohanlal who are wife and father of deceased Anil Garg (ibid) sustained serious injuries. In case of Mohanlal (injured) there was no permanent disability but had fracture of ribs, besides swelling on his right leg and head injury With difficulty in speech, for which compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded; while in case of Sheela Garg (injured), 38% permanent disability was opined by medical Board vide Ex.69, besides disfiguration in mouth and difficulty in speech, for which compensation of Rs. 52,000/- was awarded. 3. In case of death of deceased persons, respective compensation was awarded ad infra: (1) Anil Garg (deceased) : Rs. 1.50 Lacs to wife (MAC 6/91 and 4/91) : Rs. 78,000/- to father (2) Jamnadevi (deceased) : Rs. 1.63 lacs (3) Kumari Archna (deceased) : Rs. 76,000/-. 4. Since the accident took place as a result of collision in between two vehicies (Maruti Van and Bus, ibid), on the objections raised by opposite parties in course of pleadings of either of parties, the Tribunal after taking note of material on record, recorded finding that it was a case of contributory negligence of both the offending vehicles, hence liability was apportioned in the ratio of 50 50 amono~ the insurers of Maruti Van and bus. 5. Colliding Maruti Van (RPE 4899) was insured with Oriental Insurance Company which has not preferred any appeal vice its 50% liability recorded vide common Award to indemnify claimants in each of claim petitions. 6. 5. Colliding Maruti Van (RPE 4899) was insured with Oriental Insurance Company which has not preferred any appeal vice its 50% liability recorded vide common Award to indemnify claimants in each of claim petitions. 6. National Insurance Company (insurer of offending Bus-RSD 3559) has preferred appeals (CMA 775/1997 to 780/1997) in all claim petitions (MAC 2/1991 to 6/1991 and 16/1991) basically on an issue that there was a breach of policy of insurance on the part of insured bus owner; hence the Tribunal committed an error in recording finding - on the basis whereof, this insurer is claiming recovery rights against insured (bus owner). 7. Claimants have preferred their appeals (CMA 276/1997 to 279/1997 (in MAC 5/1991, 3/1991, 6/1991 and 2/1991) and CMA 253/1997 in MAC 16/1991) seeking enhancement of compensation in relation to their respective claims under Award impugned. 8. The Tribunal in all framed nine issues. Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were in relation to the accident if taken place due to negligence of offending bus or colliding Maruti Van. Issue No. 5 relates to validity of driving license of bus driver Issue Nos. 6 to 8 pertains to liability of Maruti Van insurer (Oriental Ins. Co.) and to what extent keeping in view 3rd party insurance coverage qua deceased and injured persons travelling in Maruti Van as per premium paid by its owner (insured). Issue Nos. 8-A and 8-B relates to plea raised by Bus insurer (National Ins. Co.) denying liability on the premise of having cancelled the cover of insurance. Rest of the issues related to the entitlement and computation of compensation to the claimants. 9. Issue No. 1 to 3 were jointly decided by the Tribunal and ultimately it held both offending Maruti Van and bus as negligent for the accident in question and since it was a case of contributory negligence of both the offending vehicles, hence liability was apportioned in the ratio of 50 : 50 among the insurers of Maruti Van and bus. 10. 10. Counsel for Bus insurer in their appeals has assailed the finding recorded under issue No. 8-A. Issue No. 8-A was framed on the basis of objection raised by Bus insurer to the effect that cover note was issued to insured (bus owner) on 12.8.1988 at 5.15 P.M., but the owner (insured) failed to pay full premium as required; hence cover note of insurance, itself, was cancelled on 16.8.1988 but indisputably when accident took place on 13.8.1988, bus-owner had policy of insurance in force in his favour. In support of its case, the bus insurer produced S.K. Jain (Naw-1) in witness box, only his examination in-chief was recorded on 18.4.1995 and thereafter since he never turned up, there was no cross-examination. Yet, this fact remained undisputed that on the date of accident (13.8.1988), offending bus was duly insured with appellant (insurer) and cancellation, if any, had taken place, was at a later point of time - that will not hold that there was any violation or breach of policy of insurance on the part of the insured; as such I do not find any error in the finding recorded under Issue No. 8-A, which is duly supported by material on record. Even otherwise, as was informed in course of arguments, one of joint owner of offending bus, namely Mohanlal, has expired pendente instant appeals, hence no purpose is going to serve either way on merits in appeals of bus insurer. 11. Issue No. 4 relating to quantum, is relevant for the purposes of deciding appeals of claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. In MAC 5/1991 (CMA 276/1997) claimants are husband and two sons of deceased Jamnadevi aged 48 years and as alleged in claim petition, she was one of partners in M/s. Moon Chand Mohanlal and from partnership firm, she was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. Partnership deed (Ex.136) was placed on record to substantiate about her income but it appears that Jamnadevi and Anil Kumar both were partners in aforesaid firm and since both the partners have expired, the firm stood dissolved. No material came on record which may at all show about her personal income. Taking note of material on record. the Tribunal considered Rs. 1,500/- as loss of income to her family and looking to her age 45 years, multiplier of 13 was adopted and after ⅓rd deduction towards personal expenses, in all awarded Rs. 1.63 lacs (Rs. No material came on record which may at all show about her personal income. Taking note of material on record. the Tribunal considered Rs. 1,500/- as loss of income to her family and looking to her age 45 years, multiplier of 13 was adopted and after ⅓rd deduction towards personal expenses, in all awarded Rs. 1.63 lacs (Rs. 1.56 lacs for loss of financial aid to the family and Rs. 5,000/- for love and affection and Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses). I do not find any error in awarding aforesaid compensation and keeping in vie", nature of her work and age and material came on record, in my opinion, what has been finally awarded being just does not called for interference. 12. Claimants are wife and daughter (CMA 278/1997 arising out of MAC 6/1991) and father of deceased Anil Garg aged 25 years. As alleged in claim petitions, deceased was earning Rs. 2,500/- from aforesaid partnership firm. Claimant wife alleged that her husband deceased used to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month out of which he used to spend Rs. 300/- toward personal expenses. Except partnership deed (Ex.136), no other documentary evidence came on record to substantiate about his income as claimed by claimants. Accordingly, taking note of material on record and on its guess work, the Tribunal considered Rs. 1,500/- as monthly income of deceased and keeping in view his age, adopted multiplier of 18 and after ⅓rd deduction towards personal expenses, in all awarded compensation of Rs. 2.28 lacs (including Rs. 2.16 lacs towards loss of financial aid and Rs. 5,000/- each for love and affection and consortium to wife and Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses). Having gone through the finding recorded in awarding aforesaid compensation, in my opinion what has been awarded being just does not call for enhancement. 13. Claimants (appellants in CMA 253/1997 arising out of MAC 16/1991) are parents of deceased Kumari Archna aged 10 years, for whose death, considering material on record and keeping in view her age being non-earning member be judicial trend on the date of accident, the Tribunal awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs. 76,000/- alongwith 12% per annum under Award impugned. I find no error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal, which is duly supported by material on record and based on judicial conscience. 76,000/- alongwith 12% per annum under Award impugned. I find no error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal, which is duly supported by material on record and based on judicial conscience. What has been awarded to a girl of 10 years, being just does not call for enhancement. 14. As regards claim petitions relating to injured, in case of Mohanlal (injured) (appellant in CMA 277/1997 arising out of MAC 3/1991) there was no permanent disability but had fracture of ribs, besides swelling on his right leg and head injury with some difficulty in speech, for which compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded; while in case of Sheela Garg (injured) (appellant in CMA 279/1997) arising out of MAC 2/1991), 38% permanent disability was opined by Medical Board vide Ex.69, for which compensation of Rs. 52,000/- was awarded. Mohanlal-injured remained hospitalised for ten days for medical treatment of injuries sustained in the accident while Sheela Garg injured for 20 days. I have gone through the finding recorded by Tribunal, which is duly supported by material on record. I find that looking to their nature of injuries and permanent disability opined by Medical Board on the injured persons while in case of Mohanlal there was no permanent disability, and period of hospitalisation, what has been finally awarded being joist does not call for enhancement. 15. Consequently, all the (11) appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The Tribunal is directed to disburse amount of compensation computed under common Award impugned in accordance with law. The record alongwith certified copy of this judgment be sent to the Tribunal concerned forthwith.Appeals Dismissed. *******