Judgment Arun Mishra and A.M. Naik, JJ. ( 1. ) These appeals have been preferred by the claimants aggrieved by common award dated 19.10.2005 passed by Seventh Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case Nos. 90 and 91 of 2005 dismissing the claim petitions. ( 2. ) The claimants preferred claim petitions on account of death of S. Kiruwanand aged 27 years, driver in Air Force and Pinto Joseph aged 28 years who was also a driver in the service of Air Force. The claimants submitted that Pinto Joseph was driving motor cycle at about 2.15 oclock in the night when they were returning from railway station to service camp of Air Force Service Station, Maharajpur. They were going on their side of the road, bus No. MP 07-F 0570 was going ahead, the bus was stopped all of a sudden and without applying the indicators, brakes were applied, due to that the motor cycle on which deceased were travelling, dashed with the bus. Pinto Joseph and S. Kiruwanand sustained injuries, they were taken to J.A.H. Hospital, Gwalior where they were declared dead. On account of death of S. Kiruwanand Claim Case No. 90 of 2005 was preferred by parents aged 45 and 42 years, brother and grandmother. Claim Case No. 91 of 2005 was preferred on account of death of Pinto Joseph by his parents aged 45 and 44 years. It was submitted that Pinto Joseph used to earn a sum of Rs. 7,660 per month, compensation of Rs. 31,47,600 was claimed, whereas S. Kiruwanand used to earn Rs. 8,921 per month and compensation of Rs. 40,14,768 was claimed. The bus was being driven by Banwari Gurjar, owned by Ramnath Singh and insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ( 3. ) The owner and driver of the bus remained ex parte. The insurer in the reply denied the liability to make payment of compensation on the ground that the deceased Pinto Joseph was negligent. Owner and insurer of the motor cycle were necessary parties. The bus was plied without valid licence, permit and fitness certificate. ( 4. ) The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petitions on the ground that Pinto Joseph himself was negligent. Negligence on the part of the driver has not been established. Dissatisfied with the award, the appeals have been preferred. ( 5. ) Mr. The bus was plied without valid licence, permit and fitness certificate. ( 4. ) The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petitions on the ground that Pinto Joseph himself was negligent. Negligence on the part of the driver has not been established. Dissatisfied with the award, the appeals have been preferred. ( 5. ) Mr. R.P. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants has submitted that the bus was stopped without giving any indicator as found in the police investigation, the driver of the bus was charge-sheeted for rash and negligent driving and for committing offence under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The driver was holding the licence to drive the vehicle. Negligence was on the part of the driver of the bus, in spite of applying the brakes accident could not be avoided by the deceased. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of the driver and owner or insurer so as to indicate that the driver of the bus was not negligent. Considering the age of the deceased S. Kiruwanand and Pinto Joseph adequate compensation be awarded. ( 6. ) Mr. Srinivas Gajendragadkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer has supported the award. He has submitted that it is a case of negligence on the part of the deceased Pinto Joseph. It appears that he has dashed with the stationary bus. Though the evidence is not indicating that indicators were switched on of the bus, but, still it appears that the deceased Pinto Joseph was driving the motor vehicle at an excessive speed which was the cause of accident, consequently, the claim petitions have been rightly dismissed by the Tribunal. ( 7. ) In the instant case, first question for consideration is about negligence. In the first information report it was mentioned that the driver of the bus stopped the bus without switching on any indicator. The place where the bus was stopped was not parking place or the bus stand. The driver of the bus was found to be negligent for the accident and aforesaid offence was registered against him. In the first information report it was mentioned that the driver of the bus stopped the bus without switching on any indicator. The place where the bus was stopped was not parking place or the bus stand. The driver of the bus was found to be negligent for the accident and aforesaid offence was registered against him. When we consider the evidence adduced by the claimants, Bachchu Sharma, CW 3, has stated that the bus in question was being plied at an excessive speed and was stopped all of a sudden without giving any indicator, the motor cycle was coming behind, the brakes were applied, still it was not possible to avoid the accident. The negligence was on the part of the driver of the bus. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the bus was being plied at a speed of 50-60 kmph, motor cycle was following the bus. In rebuttal, driver, owner and insurer have not examined any witness with respect to negligence. The driver of the bus has not entered the witness-box. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the bus was stopped all of a sudden while Pinto Joseph who was driving the motor cycle was coming behind and bus was stopped at the place which was not for the purpose of stopping the bus, thus, it was not possible for Pinto Joseph to think that the bus was to be stopped without giving any indicator as the place where bus was stopped was not supposed to be a place for stopping the bus. It was sheer negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. We hold that the accident took place due to negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and Pinto Joseph was not negligent. We set aside the finding to the contrary recorded by the Tribunal, which is found to be perverse. ( 8. ) Coming to question of quantum of compensation to be awarded on account of death of Pinto Joseph, it is apparent from his salary certificate, Exh. P6 proved by the claimants by examining J.N. Chatterjee, CW 2 that his basic pay was Rs. 4,180, GCB pay was Rs. 80 and dearness allowance was Rs. 2,466. He was getting other allowances also which we exclude from his salary, thus the amount comes to Rs. P6 proved by the claimants by examining J.N. Chatterjee, CW 2 that his basic pay was Rs. 4,180, GCB pay was Rs. 80 and dearness allowance was Rs. 2,466. He was getting other allowances also which we exclude from his salary, thus the amount comes to Rs. 6,726, making V3rd deduction for self-expenditure of the deceased which amount he would have spent on himself had he been alive, the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,484, annual comes to Rs. 4,484 x 12 = Rs. 53,808, rounded off to Rs. 53,800, age of the father appears to be between 45 and 50 years, thus, the multiplier of 13 is applied, consequently, the compensation on account of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 53,800 x 13 = Rs. 6,99,400. Apart from that an amount of Rs. 30,000 is awarded under the customary heads, i.e., loss to estate, loss of expectancy of life and for funeral expenses, thus the total compensation comes to Rs. 6,99,400 + Rs. 30,000 = Rs. 7,29,400 (rupees seven lakh twenty- nine thousand and four hundred). The compensation awarded by this court to carry interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. ( 9. ) Coming to claim case relating to death of S. Kiruwanand the claim petition was preferred by the parents, brother and grandmother. The deceased was drawing salary by way of working as driver in the Air Force at Rs. 8,921. His basic pay was Rs. 3,900 and dearness allowance was Rs. 2,301. He was also getting some other allowances and the miscellaneous amount credited to his account was Rs. 2,487. The miscellaneous credit along with some other allowances which were actually towards expenditure cannot be included towards effective salary. Thus, the basic pay and dearness allowance is taken into consideration, the salary comes to Rs. 6,201 rounded off to Rs. 6,200, making V3rd deduction towards self-expenditure of the deceased which amount he would have spent on himself had he been alive, the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,125, annual comes to Rs. 4,125 x 12 = Rs. 49,500, considering the age of the parents we apply the multiplier of 13, consequently, the compensation on account of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 49,500 x 13 = Rs. 6,43,500. Apart from that an amount of Rs. 4,125, annual comes to Rs. 4,125 x 12 = Rs. 49,500, considering the age of the parents we apply the multiplier of 13, consequently, the compensation on account of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 49,500 x 13 = Rs. 6,43,500. Apart from that an amount of Rs. 30,000 is awarded under the customary heads, i.e., loss to estate, loss of expectancy of life and for funeral expenses, thus the total compensation comes to Rs. 6,43,500 + Rs. 30,000 = Rs. 6,73,500 (rupees six lakh seventy-three thousand and five hundred). Compensation awarded by this court to carry interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. ( 10. ) Mr. Srinivas Gajendragadkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer has submitted that there was breach of policy as driver was holding the licence to drive light motor vehicle and he was driving transport vehicle. What was the unladen weight of the vehicle has not been brought on record. The counsel on specific query being made was unable to point out the unladen weight of the bus driven by the respondent No. 1. Though the bus was a transport vehicle but in case it was light motor vehicle, it was an inconsequential breach and even otherwise as the vehicle was stopped without applying the indicators it cannot be said that there was any substantial breach on the part of the owner with respect to valid licence. Thus, liability is held to be joint and several of the owner, driver and insurer to make payment of the compensation. ( 11. ) The appeals are allowed. In M.A. No. 99 of 2006 (T. Subramaniam v. Ban- wari Gurjar) compensation of Rs. 6,73,500 (rupees six lakh seventy-three thousand and five hundred) is awarded while in M.A. No. 100 of 2006 (Western Anthoney Joseph v. Banwari Gurjar), compensation of Rs. 7,29,400 (rupees seven lakh twenty- nine thousand and four hundred) is awarded. The compensation awarded by this court, in both the appeals, to carry interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. The liability is held to be joint and several of the owner, driver and insurer to make payment of compensation. Parties are left to bear their own costs as incurred in the appeals. Appeals allowed.