JUDGMENT 1. - These three Misc. Appeals, namely; 271/1996, 272/1996 and 300/1996 filed by the Insurance Company have arisen out of single accident for which claim case Nos.26/91 (200/95), 50/91(207/95) and 29/91 (202/95) respectively were preferred by the claimant-respondents before the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur who vide his judgment and Award dated 5.12.1995 decided the claims petitions by a common judgment and awarded Rs.1,50,000/- in claim case No.26/91(200/95), Rs. 14,800/- in claim case No.50/91(207/95) and Rs. 1,25,000/- in claim case No.29/91(202/95) as compensation in each case. Since in these appeals, common question of law and facts are involved, therefore, these appeals were being heard together to maintain uniformity and convenience of judgment and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 21.8.1990 at about 5.00 p.m. while Chhagan Singh and Lal Singh were coming from Village Ransi to Jodhpur in Jeep bearing Registration No. RJ 19-C/475, which was being driven by the driver Arun Alias Mahendra Singh whereas a Bus bearing Registration No. RPA 9091 was going from Jodhpur to Bilara and when the said Jeep reached near village Jhurli turn, then, the said Bus, which came from opposite side rashly and negligently at a high speed driven by its driver Mohanlal, both the vehicles collided facing each other, as a result of which, among the persons sitting in the jeep, Chhagan Singh died on the spot and Lal Singh sustained grievous injuries on his person, by which, he became unconscious, therefore, he was brought to Government Hospital, Bilara for treatment in a Truck, where the doctor has declared him dead. 3. It was stated in the claim petition that Paras Ram who was traveling in the same jeep, he sustained grievous injuries on his person. The driver of the jeep Arun @ Mahendra singh also sustained several injuries on his person. 4. It was alleged in the claim petition No.200/95 that Chhagan Singh was working on the post of Principal, Mahilabagh Senior Higher Secondary School, Jodhpur and he was earning Rs.6025/- per month as salary and at the time of accident, he was 57 years of age and due to untimely death of Chhagan Singh in accident, the claimants suffered loss of income as well as suffered loss of love and affection. The legal heirs of Chhagan Lal filed a claim petition for grant of Rs. The legal heirs of Chhagan Lal filed a claim petition for grant of Rs. 8,71,000/- as compensation on various heads. 5. It was alleged in the claim petition No.202/95 that Lal Singh was doing the work of Contractor and he was having stone mines and limekiln and his yearly income was near-about Rs.48,000/- he was Income-tax Payer and at the time of accident, he was 57 years of age. due to untimely death of Lal Singh in accident, the claimants suffered loss of income as well as suffered loss of love and affection. The legal heirs of Lal Singh filed a claim petition for grant of Rs.10,84,650/- as compensation on various heads. 6. In the Claim Petition No. 207/95 filed by the injured Paras Ram, it was stated that at the time of accident, he was 50 years old and was earning Rs.1600/- per month. He claimed and prayed to award a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- as compensation. 7. In the afore-mentioned claim petitions, it was stated that the driver and owner of the truck are respondent No.1-Mohan Lal and respondent No.2-Baljeet Singh and United India Insurance Company Ltd. is the insurer of Bus and prayed that the claims be awarded against them. 8. In the claim petitions, referred above, the separate replies were submitted by respondents No.1 and 2, wherein it was stated that respondent No.1 was not negligent in driving the Bus but as a matter of fact, Arun @ Mahendra Singh- driver of the Jeep No.RJ 19 C/475 was negligent in driving jeep and due to that, the accident occurred. It was further alleged that the exorbitant compensations have been claimed, but they were not entitled to get any sort of compensation from them. It was further stated that at the time of accident, the Bus was insured with respondent-United India Insurance Company Ltd. It was also submitted that the Insurance Policy of the Bus stood in the name of Khema Ram but from whom the respondent No.2 Baljeet Singh purchased the said bus and the Insurance Company was informed accordingly. Thus, they are responsible for the payment of compensation, in case it arises. 9. In replies submitted by respondent-Insurance Company, the factum of Bus being insured with Company in the name of respondent No.2 was not admitted as it was insured in the name of Khema Ram. Thus, they are responsible for the payment of compensation, in case it arises. 9. In replies submitted by respondent-Insurance Company, the factum of Bus being insured with Company in the name of respondent No.2 was not admitted as it was insured in the name of Khema Ram. It was further stated that the driver of Bus was not having a valid and effective driving licence and no intimation with regard to accident, was given to the Company, which were in violation of terms and conditions of policy. It was also stated that the driver, owner and insurer of the Jeep were necessary parties and they have not been made parties, therefore, claims are not tenable. Thus, respondent-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants and prayed to dismiss the claim petitions. 10. On the basis of pleadings of parties relevant common issues were framed in all the cases tried jointly and decided by a common judgment by the learned Tribunal. Thus, respondent-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants and prayed to dismiss the claim petitions. 10. On the basis of pleadings of parties relevant common issues were framed in all the cases tried jointly and decided by a common judgment by the learned Tribunal. The following issues were framed as under:- " 1- vk;k fnukad 21-08-1990 dks tc v:.k mQZ egsUnzflag thi uEcj vkj0ts0 19&lh&0475 dks viuh lgh fn'kk esa pykrs gq, tc >jyh eksM+ ij igqapk vkSj tks/kiqj dh rjQ tkus ds fy, lM+d dzkWl dj viuh lgh lkbZM esa igqapk fd tks/kiqj dh rjQ ls vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 us cl uEcj vkj0ih0,0 9091 dks vR;Ur rst xfr ,oa ykijokgh ls pykdj xyr lkbZM esa vkdj thi ds tksjnkj Vddj ekjh ftlds QyLo:i thi esa lokj Nxuflag o ykyflag dh mDr nq?kZVuk esa yxh pksVksa ds dkj.k e`R;q dkfjr gqbZ o izkFkhZ v:.k mQZ egsUnzflag rFkk ikjljke ds pksVsa dkfjr gqbZ\ 2- vk;k izR;sd Dyse vkosnu ds izkFkhZx.k Dyse vkosnu ds in la[;k 25 ds fofHkUu enksa ds vUrZxr {kfriwfrZ dh jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- vk;k mDr nq?kZVuk thi pkyd }kjk thi dks cgqr rst xfr ls pykus o lkbZM jksM+ ls eq[; ekxZ ij vkrs le; lM+d lqj{kk fu;eksa dh vuns[kh djus ds dkj.k dkfjr gqbZ\ ;fn ,slk gS rks bldk D;k vlj gS\ 4- vk;k thi pkyd] thi ekfyd o thi dh chek dEiuh vko';d i{kdkj eqdnek gS\ ;fn ,slk gS rks bldk D;k vlj gS\ 5- vk;k oDr nq?kZVuk vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 cl dks cl Lokeh o chek ikWfylh/kkjh ds fu;a=.k fu;kstu o fgr&fgrkFkZ okgu dks ugha pyk jgk FkkA\ ;fn ,slk gS rks bldk D;k vlj gS\ 6- vk;k oDr nq?kZVuk vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 cl la[;k vkj0ih0,0 9091 dk Lokeh Fkk tc fd chek ikWfylh ds vfHkys[k ds vuqlkj mDr cl dk Lokeh [ksekjke iq= Hkksenkl uked O;fDr FkkA ;fn ,slk gS rks bldk D;k vlj gS\ 7- vuqrks"kA " 11. During trial, AW 1 Smt.Chandra Kachchhawah widow of Chhagan Singh, AW 2 Smt. Vijay Laxmi widow of Lal Singh, AW3 Paras Ram injured and AW 4 Arun alias Mahendra Singh driver of the said jeep were examined, their statements were recorded and the claimants also produced and exhibited necessary relevant documents. From the side of defence, NAW 1 Baljeet Singh, NAW 2 Subhash Bohra were examined 12. From the side of defence, NAW 1 Baljeet Singh, NAW 2 Subhash Bohra were examined 12. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving at high speed of the Bus by its driver Mohan Lal resulting in death of Chhagan Singh and Lal Singh and causing injuries to Paras Ram and others. The learned Tribunal also observed at the same time that the jeep driver did not take precaution to avoid accident. The learned Tribunal has turned down the other defences taken by the appellant in absence of the proof and further awarded compensation to the claimants in the manner stated above and held bus owner and insurer of the bus jointly and severally responsible for the payment of compensation. 13. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and Award dated 5.12.95, the respondent-Insurance Company came in appeal before this Court. Notices of the appeals were issued, The Cross-objections on behalf of the claimant respondents in CMA No.271/96 and 300/96 were filed and they were connected along with concerned appeal. 14. Arguments heard. The claimant-respondents in CMA No. 300/96 submitted that during pendency of the appeal, Smt. Vijay Laxmi has expired. The legal heirs of the deceased Smt. Vijay Laxmi are already on record. Her name should be deleted from the array of the respondents in that appeal. Hence, her name was deleted. 15. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on relevant issues are not based on proper appreciation of material available on record, therefore, the judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable. It was further stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the said accident took place out of collusion between the concerned Bus and Jeep resulting in death of two persons sitting in the jeep and causing injuries to others, therefore, it was crystal clear before the learned Tribunal that both the drivers of the vehicles were negligent but the learned Tribunal has not decided their specific percentage of contribution in causing accident, therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal is misconceived. It was also contended that the applicants has not made driver, owner and insurer of the jeep as parties to the proceedings though they were necessary parties. It was also contended that the applicants has not made driver, owner and insurer of the jeep as parties to the proceedings though they were necessary parties. It was urged that it was material defect hence the claim petitions were not tenable but the learned Tribunal has not given due weightage to this contention. It was also contended by the learned counsel that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep and not taking proper care and the learned Tribunal while dealing with issue No.1 has mentioned in their own finding held that the said jeep driver was negligent but the learned Tribunal wrongly held the appellant sole responsible for the entire payment of compensation to the claimants. It was also urged that compensation awarded is also on higher side. On these submissions, it was prayed that the judgment and Award may be set aside and the appeals may be allowed. 16. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents refuted the contentions placed by the appellant's side and submitted that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus. It was stated that it is made clear from the record i.e. the site-plan and Halat-mouka Ex.3 and 4 respectively that the concerned Jeep was dragged up to 32 feets and thereafter it was stopped due to struck with the Babool Tree, therefore, driver of the Bus was exclusively responsible for causing accident. It was also contended that the police also filed challan after investigation against driver of the Bus. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that the finding on issue No.1 in this way challenged by way of cross objection and it was prayed that a clear cut finding be recorded that the accident has occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, therefore, it was urged that no question arises for making party driver, owner of the bus and insurer of the Jeep. On the defence pleas, a specific issue No.4 was framed by the learned Tribunal and burden of proving that issue was on Insurance Company but they failed to lead evidence. Now they are estopped to raise contention in this respect. On the defence pleas, a specific issue No.4 was framed by the learned Tribunal and burden of proving that issue was on Insurance Company but they failed to lead evidence. Now they are estopped to raise contention in this respect. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that even in a case where both the drivers of the concerned vehicles found involved in the accident though that was not the position in the present case. The claimant respondents were free to make demand of compensation either of them. Thus, the contentions raised in this respect are not sustainable. Further on the strength of the cross objections filed in the afore-mentioned cases. It was urged that the learned Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation in the cases of persons died in the accident. The learned Tribunal further erroneously and wrongly has deducted Rs.13000/- in CMA No.271/96(Claim Case No.200/95) filed by Smt. Chanda Devi and others and Rs.10,000/- in CMA No.300/96)Claim Case No.202/95) filed by Smt. Vijay Laxmi on account of awarding lump sum amount. It was urged that legally such type of deduction was not permissible, therefore, it was urged that such wrongful deductions of Rs.13000 and 10000 in CMA No. 271/96 and 300/96 respectively be set aside and the concerned amounts may be added in the awarded compensation. On these submissions, it was urged that the contentions of the appellant may be rejected and the appeals may be dismissed. 17. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the findings on each issue and conclusion drawn thereon by the learned Tribunal, the question arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the appellant- Insurance Company has wrongly made responsible for the payment of the entire amount of compensation to the claimant-respondents. 18. During the course of arguments, the first contention was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was involvement of both the vehicles but the learned Tribunal without determining the ratio of their contribution in causing accident has wrongly held responsible for the entire amount of compensation. In this respect, I have perused the material available on record. The witness produced on behalf of the claimant-respondents has specifically stated that at the time of accident, the bus was running at high speed in rash and negligent manner. In this respect, I have perused the material available on record. The witness produced on behalf of the claimant-respondents has specifically stated that at the time of accident, the bus was running at high speed in rash and negligent manner. That position was further corroborated by the fact that from the point of place of accident, the Jeep was dragged upto 32 steps, thereafter it was stopped due to struck with the standing Tree. On that basis, it can easily be inferred that the bus was totally at fault. The learned Tribunal while discussing the material on issue No.1 has also came to the same conclusion that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. The relevant portion of his finding is quoted as under:- ,slk yxrk gS fd cl dh LihM cgqr rst Fkh blfy;s og thi dks Vddj ekjus ds ckn Hkh 32 dne rd ?klhVdj ys xbZ vkSj vkxs isM+ esa tkdj :dh ;g Hkh Li"V gksrk gS fd cl pkyd us thi dks lM+d dzkWl djrs ns[k dj cl dh xfr /kheh djus dh ;k mls jksdus dh Hkh dksbZ mfpr dk;Zokgh lko/kkuh iwoZd ugha dhA 19. Thus as per the finding of the learned Tribunal, the offending bus was responsible in causing accident. The learned Tribunal, while discussing the facts on this issue, though, has observed that the Jeep driver has not taken due care while coming on Highway but looking to the observations made by the learned Tribunal, the jeep driver cannot be made responsible for causing accident, therefore, there was no question to determine the ratio of contribution on any accident. Neither it was necessary for the claimant to make driver, owner and insurer of the jeep as parties. Specific issue has been framed in this respect but the appellant has not led any sort of evidence, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly concluded the issue. It is also clear that even in the case of collusion between the two vehicles occupants of one vehicle as a claimant can claim compensation either of them on the principle of liability on joint tort fearsors. Thus, the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are not sustainable and they are liable to be rejected. 20. It is also clear that even in the case of collusion between the two vehicles occupants of one vehicle as a claimant can claim compensation either of them on the principle of liability on joint tort fearsors. Thus, the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are not sustainable and they are liable to be rejected. 20. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal are on higher side but considering the amount of compensation and calculation made by the learned Tribunal awarded compensation are not on higher side and are not suffered from any infirmity but the learned Tribunal while awarding compensation has deducted Rs.13000/- in MACT Case No. 200/95) and Rs. 10000/- in MACT case No.202/95 on account of lump sum payment of amount of compensation but such sort of deductions are not justified and deserve to be set aside except this awarded compensation just and reasonable in all the appeals. Thus, to the extent of these deductions, cross-objections filed on behalf of the claimant-respondents are allowed and the aforesaid deductions made by the learned Tribunal are set aside. The deducted amount of compensation again be added in the determined amount of compensation and claimant-respondents of concerned appeals are entitled to recover the same along with interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal on compensation amount. 21. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals filed by the Insurance-Company are hereby rejected and the cross-objections filed on behalf of the claimant-respondents in CMA No. 271/96 and 300/96 are allowed to this extent that deductions of the amount of Rs.13,000/- in MACT Case No.200/95 and Rs.10,000/- in MACT Case No.202/95 are set aside. Consequently, these amounts be added in the amount of awarded compensation and the claimant-respondents are entitled to receive the same. The owner and insurer of the bus are jointly and severally responsible for the payment of these deducted amount along with with interest at the rate already awarded by the learned Tribunal. The insurer of the Bus is directed to make payment within a period of one month from the date of this judgment, failing which, the claimant respondents will be free to realise the same. The rest of the judgment of the learned Tribunal is confirmed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. The insurer of the Bus is directed to make payment within a period of one month from the date of this judgment, failing which, the claimant respondents will be free to realise the same. The rest of the judgment of the learned Tribunal is confirmed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******