Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by the award dated 17. 11. 2004 passed by the Second additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sehore in M. C. C. No. 40 of 2004, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants under section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act for compensation on account of death of Shivram caused in the motor accident has been rejected. ( 2. ) THE facts of the case in short are that on 14. 12. 2000 at about 9 p. m. Shivram was pillion rider on scooter No. MP 04-G 4616 which was being driven by Rajkumar. They were going from Ashta to Sehore. One trolley filled with sugarcane and tractor No. MBF 2760 was parked on the road near the well of Jagdish Jat without any parking lights on. The scooter dashed with it. They became seriously injured and Shivram was carried to Hamidia Hospital where he succumbed to injuries on 16. 12. 2000 sustained by him in the motor accident. Report was lodged by Rajkumar in Police Station, mandi, wherein Crime No. 349 of 2000 was registered under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code against Rai singh, respondent No. 1. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 were the registered owners and respondent No. 4 was in possession of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. It was also averred that Shivram was working as a peon in Laxmibai Girls Middle School, Sehore and was getting salary of Rs. 1,800. He was also doing the work of tailoring and earning Rs. 200 per day. The claimants suffered a great loss on account of death of Shivram caused in the motor accident, therefore, they filed the claim petition claiming the compensation of Rs. 80,50,000 to be awarded for the death of Shivram caused in the motor accident. ( 3. ) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed the written statement denying the claim and liability mainly contending that he was not the driver of tractor-trolley on the date of accident. However, he has contended that he was having valid driving licence. Further he has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case, therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation. ( 4. ) THE respondent No. 2 has also submitted the written statement repudiating the claim mainly contending that respondent No. 1 was not in his employment. However, he has contended that he was having valid driving licence. Further he has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case, therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation. ( 4. ) THE respondent No. 2 has also submitted the written statement repudiating the claim mainly contending that respondent No. 1 was not in his employment. It is also contended that the scooterist was driving it in the intoxicated condition and dashed against the tractor parked on the side of road. It is also further contended that the vehicle was sold to respondent No. 4 in the year 1997, therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation. ( 5. ) THE respondent No. 3 was proceeded ex parte. ( 6. ) THE respondent No. 4 also submitted the written statement mainly contending that he was not in the possession of that tractor-trolley on the date of incident. He had sold it to Ratan Singh about two years back, therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation. ( 7. ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues. Parties adduced their evidence. On appreciation of evidence the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the scooterist. It was not found proved that the driver of tractor-trolley parked it on the road consequently the scooterist dashed against it. However, it was found that Shiv-ram died on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal found the case not proved hence dismissed the same. Being aggrieved by the award the appellants have filed the instant appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. ( 8. ) THE learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and has committed illegality in not relying on the statement of Rajkumar who has categorically stated that the tractor and trolley was parked on road without parking lights on or any signal. The Tribunal has committed illegality in holding that scooterist is responsible for this accident. The Tribunal has committed illegality in holding that scooterist is responsible for this accident. The charge-sheet was filed against the tractor-trolley driver, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have accepted that the accident occurred due to negligence of the tractor and trolley driver who parked the same at the wrong place, therefore, the impugned award be set aside and suitable compensation be awarded on account of death of shivram caused in the motor accident. ( 9. ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 Mr. Rajesh nema has supported the award and submitted that appellants failed to prove their case, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed their claim petition, hence no interference is called for in this appeal. ( 10. ) THE main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the Tribunal has committed any illegality in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellants? ( 11. ) WE have perused the record and entire evidence adduced in the case. ( 12. ) PUSHPA, the widow of the deceased shivram, AW 1 and Ramesh Chand Malviya, aw 2 is the brother-in-law of the deceased have stated that Shivram died in the motor accident. ( 13. ) RAJKUMAR, AW 3, is the scooter driver. He has deposed that on 14. 12. 2000 he was driving the scooter and Shivram was sitting as pillion rider. One trolley No. MBF 2760 filled with sugarcane was parked on the road. There was no parking lights or any signal. One truck was coming from bhopal side on account of dazzling light of that truck he could not see the tractor-trolley parked there and dashed against trolley. He sustained the injuries. Shivram also sustained injury and became unconscious at the spot. Shivram was carried to sehore Hospital from where he was referred to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal and succumbed to injuries during the course of treatment. Rai Singh, respondent No. 1 was the driver of that tractor-trolley and after seeing the accident he ran away from the spot. Further he has submitted that he lodged dehati nalici, Exh. P1. ( 14. ) IN cross-examination this witness has stated that he was not driving the scooter in intoxicated condition. He has further deposed that the tractor-trolley was not parked in the right direction. ( 15. ) RAI Singh, NAW 4, has stated that he has not caused this accident. Further he has submitted that he lodged dehati nalici, Exh. P1. ( 14. ) IN cross-examination this witness has stated that he was not driving the scooter in intoxicated condition. He has further deposed that the tractor-trolley was not parked in the right direction. ( 15. ) RAI Singh, NAW 4, has stated that he has not caused this accident. However, he has admitted that his driving licence and some other documents relating to this vehicle seized by the police vide Exh. P9. ( 16. ) JAGDISH Jat, NAW 2, has stated that one trolley filled with sugarcane was parked near to his house. He came out from his house after hearing the cries. In cross-examination he has stated that he has not witnessed the incident and there was no traffic signal where the trolley was parked. ( 17. ) SATYAVEER Singh Yadav, head constable, NAW 3, who has investigated the case stated that he prepared the map, Exh. P4 and has also stated that the trolley filled with sugarcane was seized from the roadside. He has also admitted that tractor No. MBF 2760 with trolley was seized vide seizure memo, Exh. P5. During the course of investigation, he found that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of tractor-trolley, therefore, the challan has been filed against the respondent No. 1. ( 18. ) ON appreciation of the evidence the statement of Rajkumar, AW 3, seems to be reliable because his presence at the spot cannot be doubted at the time of incident. He has clearly stated that tractor-trolley parked on the road without parking lights or signal and on account of dazzling headlight of another truck he could not see the parked vehicle and hence dashed against it. Thus the accident caused due to negligence of driver of tractor-trolley. ( 19. ) FURTHER his statement is supported by the documents filed by the claimants in support of their claim petition. From the statement of Satyaveer Singh Yadav it is manifestly clear that the offence against the respondent No. 1 has been registered and during the course of investigation, it was found that this accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of tractor-trolley hence the charge-sheet was filed against him. ( 20. From the statement of Satyaveer Singh Yadav it is manifestly clear that the offence against the respondent No. 1 has been registered and during the course of investigation, it was found that this accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of tractor-trolley hence the charge-sheet was filed against him. ( 20. ) ON perusal of entire evidence, it can safely be said that the accident had not occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the scooter driver but it occurred due to negligence of driver of tractor-trolley who parked it on the road without any parking lights or indicator. Thus the driver failed to take the necessary care and precaution while parking the vehicle. ( 21. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of New India Assurance co. Ltd. v. Kalpana, 2007 ACJ 825 (SC ). In this case, the deceased was driving his vehicle which dashed with a truck parked on the road in a running condition without any indicator. Deceased sustained grievous injuries and later died. The deceased was aged 33 years at the time of accident. The finding of the Claims Tribunal that accident took place on account of negligence of the deceased and on that finding dismissed the claim petition was set aside by the High Court. The High Court held that the truck was negligently parked on the road in a running condition without any indicator. In these circumstances the High court held that insurer was liable to pay compensation. The view of the High Court was affirmed by the Honble Apex Court but explaining in detail the multiplier to be applied reduced the amount of compensation fixed by the High Court. ( 22. ) TRUCK and tractor both appear to be negligent, driver of truck did not use dipper and tractor-trolley was parked without signal and switching on parking light. The deceased Shivram was pillion rider who died in this accident, therefore, his legal representatives are entitled to get compensation from any of the joint tortfeasors of the vehicles in the light of the decision of the Full Bench of this court in Sushila bhadoriya v. Madhya Pradesh State Road trans. Corpn. The deceased Shivram was pillion rider who died in this accident, therefore, his legal representatives are entitled to get compensation from any of the joint tortfeasors of the vehicles in the light of the decision of the Full Bench of this court in Sushila bhadoriya v. Madhya Pradesh State Road trans. Corpn. , 2005 ACJ 831 (MP), thus: " (27) To sum up, we hold as under: (i) Owner, driver and the 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 the insurer of both the vehicles or any one of them. (ii) There cannot be apportionment of the liability of joint tortfeasors. In case both the joint tortfeasors 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 of law, there is no necessity to apportion the inter se liability of joint tortfeasors. " ( 23. ) THUS in the light of Supreme Court decision and the evidence adduced in this case, we find that the accident occurred due to negligence of tractor-trolley driver also by parking at the wrong place without taking proper precaution at the time of parking the vehicle. Thus, we set aside the finding of Tribunal that the accident did not occur due to negligence of respondent no. 1. ( 24. ) NOW we come to the question of determination of the compensation to be awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased Shivram. ( 25. ) PUSHPA, AW 1, has deposed that her husband was serving in a Girls Middle school, Sehore on the post of peon and getting a salary of Rs. 1,900 per month. Apart from it he was also doing the tailoring work and earning Rs. 200 per day. ( 26. ) RAMESH Chand Malviya, AW 2, has also supported her evidence in this regard. ( 27. ) N. P. Mathil, AW 4, has deposed that shivram was posted as temporary/daily wager in Government Maharani Laxmibai kanya Higher Secondary School, Sehore. He was posted since 3. 4. 1992 and he was getting the salary of Rs. 1,882 per month at the rate prescribed by the Collector, Sehore. He has further deposed that the rates were revisable after every six months. He was posted since 3. 4. 1992 and he was getting the salary of Rs. 1,882 per month at the rate prescribed by the Collector, Sehore. He has further deposed that the rates were revisable after every six months. At present the rate is fixed at Rs. 2,036. He has filed the salary certificate, Exh. P20 and voucher, Exh. P21 and statement of bill, Exh. P22. ( 28. ) THUS from the evidence adduced by appellants in the case it is clearly established that deceased Shivram was employed as temporary peon in the establishment of Government Maharani Laxmibai Kanya higher Secondary School, Sehore and at that time was getting salary of Rs. 1,882 per month. His salary was likely to be revised after every 6 months by the Collector, sehore. ( 29. ) BHARAT Singh, AW 4, has deposed that Shivram was working at his tailoring shop and was getting Rs. 150 to Rs. 200 per day. ( 30. ) SINCE Shivram was peon at the time of accident and was getting the salary of rs. 1,882 per month, keeping in view the future chances that his pay was likely to be revised from time to time, we deem it proper to assess his monthly income at rs. 2,000, annually Rs. 24,000. After deducting 1/3rd amount which he would have spent on himself had he been alive, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 16,000. Since he was of 25 years of age hence the multiplier of 18 is applicable and the same is applied. Thus compensation comes to rs. 2,88,000. Since he was hospitalised in sehore and Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal and got the treatment there and died after 2-3 days of the accident, therefore, Rs. 7,000 is awarded towards the medical expenses incurred on his treatment. In addition to it rs. 30,000 is awarded in the customary heads such as funeral expenses, loss to estate, loss of expectancy of life including rs. 7,500 awarded to the widow towards loss of consortium. Thus the total compensation conies to Rs. 3,25,000. This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. ( 31. ) FROM the evidence it transpires that the respondents are trying to shift the responsibility from one to another. Thus the total compensation conies to Rs. 3,25,000. This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. ( 31. ) FROM the evidence it transpires that the respondents are trying to shift the responsibility from one to another. As it is clear that the respondent No. 1 was the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of incident. The vehicle was registered in the name of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ( 32. ) AMRITLAL, NAWs 1 and 5 has stated that this tractor was in his possession since 5 years but he has sold it to Ratanlal in the year 1998. Rameshchandra, NAW 6, has also supported the statement of Amritlal. Thus Amritlal has stated that he had sold the tractor to Ratanlal in the year 1998 but there is no document in support of his statement. ( 33. ) ON perusal of the record it transpires that Ratanlal was made a party but subsequently his name was deleted on his application. Thus prima facie there is no documentary evidence that the offending vehicle was sold to Ratanlal at that time. ( 34. ) AMRITLAL, NAWs 1 and 5 produced the power of attorney, Exh. D1, made by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in his favour. ( 35. ) SINCE respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the registered owners of the vehicle and amritlal has admitted that this vehicle was in his possession since five years, it has not been proved that it was sold to Ratanlal. In such circumstances, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. ( 36. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is allowed partly. The impugned award is set aside. The appellants are entitled to receive the compensation of Rs. 3,25,000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the respondents jointly and severally. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.