ORDER Mishra, J. -- 1. These appeals have been preferred by the claimants calling in question award dated 17.12.2003 passed in Claim Case Nos. 50/02 and 51/02 by 1st Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rewa. 2. Both the cases arise out of same accident. Shilpi and Laxmi, both aged about 17 years, were travelling as pillion rider on Suzuki Motorcycle, driven by Ramesh Halwai, it met with an accident with a Truck (UP 63B/9205), driven by Lallan Tiwari, owned by Shri Ram Yadav and insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Ramesh Halwai, Shilpi and Laxmi died owing to the injuries sustained in the accident. Claim petitions were preferred by parents of Laxmi and mother of Shilpi. It was claimed by them that negligence was on part of Lallan Tiwari. 3. The owner and driver of the truck in their reply contended that Ramesh Halwai was not able to control the motor cycle, he was negligent, Lallan Tiwari was not negligent at all as such they were not liable. Vehicle was insured, Lallan tiwari was holding valid and effective driving licence. 4. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in the reply contended that its liability was as per policy, in case of contributory negligence driver and insurer of the motorcycle were necessary parties. 5. The Tribunal has found that 70% negligence was on part of Lallan Tiwari, Ramesh Halwai was responsible to the extent of 30%, in each of the cases a sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- has been awarded. 30% amount has been ordered to be deducted out of the amount awarded as in the opinion of Tribunal, Ramesh Halwai was negligent to that extent, hence deduction of the amount has been ordered. 6. Shri S.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for appellants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded on account of death of Shilpi and Laxmi, aged 17 years. They both were assisting the work of running hotel along with their father and they used to assist the work of sweet making. They were earning members, they were earning a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month by contributing in the business, beside they used to look after house hold work also, thus, inadequate compensation has been awarded. They both were assisting the work of running hotel along with their father and they used to assist the work of sweet making. They were earning members, they were earning a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month by contributing in the business, beside they used to look after house hold work also, thus, inadequate compensation has been awarded. Apart from that deduction of 30% amount with respect to pillion rider was improper in the light of decision in Sushila Bhadoriya and others v. M.P.S.R.T.C. and another [ 2005 (1) JLJ 15 (FB) = 2005 ACJ 831 ] rendered by a Full Bench of this Court. 7. First we come to the question of quantum of compensation to be awarded. As facts are common in both the cases, it is clear that age of Shilpi and Laxmi was 17 years and there is evidence on record indicating that they used to assist in the family business of running a hotel and sweet making work, thus, they were definitely assisting in the business, beside Shilpi her father Ramesh Halwai also died in the accident. Laxmi's parent Munnalal Halwai and Ramdevi are claimants. It will be appropriate to assess the income at Rs. 70/- per day, monthly income comes to Rs. 2,100/-, thus, making 1I3rd conventional deduction towards the self-expenditure of deceased which amount would have spent on herself had she been alive, loss of monthly dependency comes to Rs. 1,400/-, annual Rs. 16,800/-, considering the age of parents it would be appropriate to apply multiplier of 15 in each of the case. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 16,800 x 15 = Rs. 2,52,000/-. Apart from that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded in each case under the heads of loss of estate, loss of expectancy of life and funeral expenses. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs. 2,52,000 + Rs. 15,000 = Rs. 2,67,000/- (Rs. Two lacs sixty seven thousand) in each case. The compensation enhanced by this Court to carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization in each case. 8. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs. 2,52,000 + Rs. 15,000 = Rs. 2,67,000/- (Rs. Two lacs sixty seven thousand) in each case. The compensation enhanced by this Court to carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization in each case. 8. Coming to question of legality of deduction of 30% compensation made by Tribunal out of the amount payable, we find that deceased Shilpi and Laxmi were not responsible for accident, they were third parties and in the case of third party, law has been settled by Full Bench of this Court :in Sushila Bhadoriya and others v. M.P.S.R. T.C. and another (supra), that it is not necessary to sue all the joint tort feasors, it is open to sue any of them and to recover entire compensation from one of the joint tort feasors, it is open to the tort feasor to settle inter se liability in appropriate proceedings. Full Bench of this Court in Sushila Bhadoriya and others v. M.P.S.R.T.C. and another (supra), has laid down thus: "27. To sum up, we hold as under :-- (i) Owner, driver and insurer of one of the vehicles can be sued and it is not necessary to sue owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles. The claimant may implead the owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles or anyone of them. (ii) There cannot be appointment of the liability of joint tort feasors. In case both the joint tort feasors are impleaded as party and if there is sufficient material on record, then the question of apportionment can be considered by the Claims Tribunal. However, on general principles I of law, there is no necessity to apportion the inter se liability of joint tort feasors." 9. In view of aforesaid, we hold that deduction of 30% amount made by the Tribunal was not proper, however, we deem it proper to place it on record that in another appeal (MA No. 587/06) a Division Bench of this Court has found that negligence of Ramesh Halwai was 20% and 80% was that of Lallan Tiwari, driver of the truck. We are adopting the extent of negligent to the aforesaid extent, but on account of negligence of Ramesh Halwai, no deduction is permissible to be made out of the amount payable on account of death of Shilpi and Laxmi as they were not responsible for the accident. 10. Resultantly, we allow the appeals to the aforesaid extent. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred of these appeals.