ORDER Mishra, J. -- 1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation and for fastening the liability upon the insurer, calling in question the award dated 10.1.2005 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sabalgarh, District Morena in Claim Case No. 60/04. 2. Claimants are the widow, son, daughter and parents of deceased Parsadi, aged 23 years. Claimants submitted that Parsadi used to do the business of wholesale and retail sell of vegetables. He used to purchase vegetables from Gwalior and used to sell in a market at Sabalgarh. 3. On 11.8.2001 the deceased was carrying the vegetables in matador (MP 07 G 3827). The claimants submitted that the matador was driven rashly and negligently which dashed with a truck due to which Parsadi sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Autopsy was performed Report was lodged at the police station. The claimants submitted that the deceased used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month, hence compensation of Rs. 46,92,000/- was claimed. Matador was driven by Roopsingh alias Amarsingh, owned by Vijaykumar and insured with National Insurance Company Limited. 4. The owner did not file any reply. Driver in his reply denied the averments and contended that deceased Parsadi was not doing the business of selling vegetables. He was not the driver of the matador. However, Parsadi was travelling in the matador was admitted by him. Insurer in its reply has contended that the negligence was on the part of the driver of the truck and the negligence was not on the part of the driver of the matador, as such, the insurer is not liable. The driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and there was violation of policy. 5. The Tribunal found that the accident took place due to negligence on the part of driver of mini truck (matador). Compensation of Rs. 1,92,000/- has been awarded assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,500/- per month, deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 15. 6. Shri B.D. Jain, learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that there was no breach of policy. The deceased was carrying goods in his vehicle and he was not travelling as a passenger, hence, the insurance company should have been held liable for paying the compensation. The assessment of income at Rs. 1,500/- per month was not proper. 6. Shri B.D. Jain, learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that there was no breach of policy. The deceased was carrying goods in his vehicle and he was not travelling as a passenger, hence, the insurance company should have been held liable for paying the compensation. The assessment of income at Rs. 1,500/- per month was not proper. He has also submitted that appropriate multiplier has not been applied considering the age of the deceased to be 23 years. He has submitted that multiplier of 18 should have been applied, thus, the compensation be suitably enhanced. 7. Shri S. Gajendragadkar, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company has made serious efforts to submit that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that driver of an unknown truck was negligent. Apart from that he has submitted that it has not been found that the deceased was carrying vegetables when the matador met with the accident. Hence, considering that there was a breach of policy, the insurance company has been rightly exonerated and the insurance company cannot be fastened with the liability to pay the compensation. 8. First question for determination is about the quantum of compensation. It is apparent that Parsadi used to purchase vegetables from Gwalior and used to sell the vegetables on wholesale and retail basis in a market at Sabalgarh. Since he used to purchase the vegetables in bulk from Gwalior he would have been earning at least Rs.150/- per day after deducting necessary expenses. Thus, his monthly income comes to Rs. 4,500/-. Thus, annual income comes to Rs. 54,000/-. Making conventional one third deductions towards self expenditure which amount the deceased would have spent on himself had he been alive, the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 36,000/-. After applying multiplier of 18, as per the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomar [ AIR 1994 SC 1631 ], the compensation comes to Rs. 6,48,000/-. Apart from that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- is further awarded to the claimants under the other customary heads, such as loss of estate, loss of expectancy of life, funeral expenses inclusive a sum of Rs. 10,000/- awarded to the widow on account of loss of consortium. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs. 6,88,000/- (Rs. six lacs eighty eight thousand). Apart from that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- is further awarded to the claimants under the other customary heads, such as loss of estate, loss of expectancy of life, funeral expenses inclusive a sum of Rs. 10,000/- awarded to the widow on account of loss of consortium. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs. 6,88,000/- (Rs. six lacs eighty eight thousand). The enhanced compensation to carry interest at the rate of seven percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. 9. Coming to the question of breach of policy, Sunderlal (CW 1) has stated that Parsadi was taking vegetables at the time when the matador met with the accident. Similar is the statement of Ramrati (CW 2) widow of the deceased. Shrilal Gaud (CW 3) has also stated that the deceased was carrying vegetables when the matador met with the accident. Similar is the statement of Diwansingh (CW 4). Matador was loaded with the vegetables of Parsadi, and the deceased was travelling alongwith the goods i.e. vegetables at the time of accident. Thus, liability is of the insurance company as per the amended provision of section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The accident took place in the year 2001 whereas the provision was amended in the year 1994. 10. Coming to the question of negligence, Shri S. Gajendragadkar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the negligence was on the part of driver of the unknown truck. We have gone through the award. Though, against issue No.1 a finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that negligence was on the part of the driver of the matador, but while determining the same, appropriate finding is not arrived at. In para 12, it has been mentioned that there was a headon collision between the two vehicles. However, the FIR as well as evidence disclose that matador came from behind and dashed with the truck going ahead. It was submitted that driver of the truck has applied break, but considering the statement of Amar Singh (NAW 1) negligence of the driver of the matador is clearly writ large. He has stated that the truck was going ahead and there was an accident which shows that because of his negligence the accident took place. It was submitted that driver of the truck has applied break, but considering the statement of Amar Singh (NAW 1) negligence of the driver of the matador is clearly writ large. He has stated that the truck was going ahead and there was an accident which shows that because of his negligence the accident took place. In view of the evidence on record, it is apparent that negligence was on the part of the driver of the matador. 11. Even if it is a case of composite negligence, it is permissible to recover compensation from any of the joint tort-feasors as held by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sushila Bhadoriya (Smt.) v. MPSRTC [ 2005 (1) JLJ 15 ]. Para 27 is quoted below: "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. Claimant may implead the owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles or anyone of them. (ii) There cannot be apportionment 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 of law, there is no necessity to apportion the inter se liability of joint tort-feasors." 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the submission of Shri Gajendragadkar that negligence was on the part of the driver of unknown truck. 13. With respect to the apportionment, it is ordered that twenty percent of the amount be disbursed to the claimants-parents in equal proportion. Remaining eighty percent is ordered to be given to the widow and daughter and son in equal proportion. Disbursement be made in the light of the apex Court decision in Susamma Thomas (supra). 14. Resultantly the appeal is allowed in part to the aforesaid extent. No. costs. -