ORDER Samvatsar, J. -- 1. This order shall govern the disposal of both these appeals as they arise out of common award dated 5th July, 2000 passed Eighth Additional Member Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Cases No. 159/96 and 160/96. In Claim Case No. 159/ 96 the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,98,000/- for the death of deceased Kalyan Singh, while in Claim Case No. 160/96 compensation to the tune of Rs. 52,000/- is awarded for the death of the deceased who was a boy of nine years. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.1.1996 the deceased persons were travelling in a bus MP 07 F 0015 which was driven by deceased Dashrath Singh. The bus was owned by respondent No.1. Said bus dashed against truck No. DL-IG B-0261 which was owned by respondent No.3 and was insured with respondent No.4. Deceased persons who were travelling in the bus sustained injuries in the said accident due to which they died. 3. Appellants in MA No. 679/2000 are the wife, children and father of the deceased while in MA No. 676/2000 the appellants claimants are the parents of the deceased. 4. Claims Tribunal found that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligence of the both the vehicles and awarded compensation as indicated herein above with a direction to the owners and insurer of both the vehicles to apportion the liability to the extent of fifty percent each. This award is under challenge in the present appeals. 5. Respondent MPSRTC has filed its cross objections challenging the finding about negligence on the part of driver of the bus. 6. Question involved in these appeals is whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper, whether the direction of apportionment to the extent of fifty percent is proper, whether the driver of the bus owned by respondent No.1 was not negligent and whether the driver of the truck was solely responsible for the accident. 7. As regard question of apportionment is concerned, counsel for the appellants submitted that in case of composite negligence, orders for apportionment should not be passed. He submitted that there cannot be apportionment of liability between the two joint tort-feasors and therefore, the Claimants have right to recover the said amount from any of the joint tort-feasors. 7. As regard question of apportionment is concerned, counsel for the appellants submitted that in case of composite negligence, orders for apportionment should not be passed. He submitted that there cannot be apportionment of liability between the two joint tort-feasors and therefore, the Claimants have right to recover the said amount from any of the joint tort-feasors. For this purpose, he referred to Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Arun Kumar [2005 (3) TAC 750] wherein Division Bench of this Court has held that in case of joint tort-feasors, it ·is difficult to determine the liability of each tort-reasons and it will not be possible to apportion the negligence of the joint tort-feasors arising out of use of motor vehicle. Award can be passed against both or anyone of them for entire amount because the injured is not in a position to quantify the apportionment of each vehicle. 8. This view is based on Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Shrimati Sushila Bhadoriya v. MP SRTC [ 2005 (1) JLJ 15 ] in which the same principle is laid down by the Full Bench. 9. Counsel for the respondents, however, tried to distinguish the said case by arguing that in that case the driver and owner of the other vehicle were not joined as party. He submitted that where the owner and driver of the other vehicle are joined as a party, then this principle will not be applicable. In the present case, according to him, as driver and owners of both the vehicles are joined as party, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has rightly apportioned the liability. 10. Respondent MPSRTC has also preferred cross objection in the matter on the ground that the driver of the MPSRTC was not negligent. 11. As regards the cross objection is concerned, said cross objection is inter se between the two co-defendants. Under Order XLI Rule 22 CPC, cross objection by one of the defendants against other defendant is not maintainable. This view is taken by the apex Court in the case of Mahant Dhangir v. Madan Mohan [ AIR 1988 SC 54 ]. However, in that case, the apex Court has held that even though cross objection is not maintainable, the Court in appropriate cases can exercise powers under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC. 12. This view is taken by the apex Court in the case of Mahant Dhangir v. Madan Mohan [ AIR 1988 SC 54 ]. However, in that case, the apex Court has held that even though cross objection is not maintainable, the Court in appropriate cases can exercise powers under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC. 12. In the present case, we find that there is a head-on collusion between the two vehicles. Counsel for the respondent No.1 relying on the statement of Rajendra Prasad Verma, AW 3 has tried to demonstrate that the driver of the bus was not negligent. The bus was coming from Agra to Gwalior. When the bus reached near Maniya Police Station, the bus stopped due to some mechanical failure. Thereafter, the bus was again started and the truck which was coming from the opposite side in a high speed of 80 km/ph dashed against the bus which shows that the driver of the bus was not negligent. 13. After careful perusal of the statement of this witness, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 because the said witness has clearly stated that after the breakdown, the bus has again started and was moving at the time of the accident. There was head-on collusion between the two vehicles. Hence, drivers of both the vehicles were equally responsible for the said accident and as has been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sushila Bhadoriya (supra) we hold that the claimants are entitled to recover the amount of compensation from any of the joint tort-feasors. 14. As regards quantum of compensation in MA No. 679/00 is concerned, in that case the deceased was 33 years of age at the time of accident. He was security guard in the MPSRTC and his monthly salary was Rs. 2,382/-. Thus, monthly dependency of the dependents will come to Rs. 1,500/- i.e. after deducting 1/3rd and, the annual dependency will come to Rs. 18,000/-. The deceased was 33 years of age at the time of accident, hence, multiplier of 17 will be applicable. On applying the multiplier of 17, the compensation would come to Rs. 3,06,000/-. Apart from this amount, the claimants are also -entitled to another sum of Rs. 19,000/- towards damages under various heads such as loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses etc. On applying the multiplier of 17, the compensation would come to Rs. 3,06,000/-. Apart from this amount, the claimants are also -entitled to another sum of Rs. 19,000/- towards damages under various heads such as loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses etc. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 3,25,000/- (Rs three lac, twenty five thousand). Claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of six percent per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the appeal till realisation. 15. So far as quantum of compensation in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 676/2000 is concerned, in that case, the deceased was a boy of nine years at the time of the accident and was a non-earning member. He was studying in third standard. Claims Tribunal considering all these facts has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 52,000/- for his death. We find that this amount is on the lower side. In case of death of a child, the minimum amount of compensation which is to be awarded by the Courts is Rs. 1,50,000/-. Hence, the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 52,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. one lac fifty thousand). Claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of six percent per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the appeal till realisation. 16. In the result, both the appeals stand succeed in part and are allowed as indicated herein above.