Hon'ble DR. KOTHARI, J.—Heard leaned counsels. 2. This appeal has been filed by the claimants aggrieved by the award of the MACT, Jodhpur dated 3.5.2005 deciding claim case No.297/2004 – Antima & Ors. vs. Kumbha Ram & Ors., claim case No.289/2004 – Rajesh vs. Kumbha Ram & Ors. and claim case No.299/2004 – Badal Gajja vs. Kumbha Ram & Ors. out of which these three appeals arise. 3. In the accident which took place on 18.11.1999 at about 10:00 PM in the night when the deceased Sunil Dutt and injured claimants Rajesh and Badal Gajja were travelling in Tata Sumo No.KA24/M 403 met with an accident with the truck No.RNM 7307 insured with respondent United India Insurance Company Ltd., Jodhpur and on account of the said accident Sunil Dutt, employee as Bank clerk in the Punjab National Bank aged 35 years, died and injured appellants Rajesh and Badal Gajja suffered injuries. 4. The learned Tribunal found while deciding issue No.1 that it was a case of contributory negligence and both the drivers of Tata Sumo as well as truck driver and found that to the extent of 40% the drive of Tata Sumo and 60% truck driver was responsible in causing the said accident as the learned Tribunal while determining the amount of compensation on the basis of evidence adduced by the claimants, however, reduced the compensation to the extent 40% as the owner and driver of the Tata Sumo were not impleaded as defendants in the said claim petition. 5. The learned counsel for the claimants Mr. M.L. Panwar submitted that it was not a case of contributory negligence but is a case of composite negligence of both the drivers and relying on the various decisions of Apex Court and of this Court including one in the case of Said Peer Asraf Shah Jilani vs. Indra Jeeet – 2005(10) RDD 4556 (Raj.), he submitted that in case of composite negligence, the claimants had a right to proceed against either of the tortfeasor and, therefore, non-impleadment of owner of the Tata Sumo could not amount to reduction in the amount of claim to the extent of 40% even if the negligence to the extent of 40% on the part of the driver of the Tata Sumo was found by the learned Tribunal. He also submitted that the compensation in the case of deceased Sunil Dutt in the first appeal No.1133/2005 deserves to be enhanced as the learned Tribunal has not taken into account the future prospects of increase of the income of the deceased Sunil Dutt, who was employed as clerk in the Punjab National Bank at the time of accident and was only aged around 35 years and, therefore, suitable enhancement in compensation deserves to be awarded in his favour. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation – 2009 (2)DNJ (SC) 684 in support of his submissions. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “11. In Susamma Thomas, this Court increased the income by nearly100%, in Sarla Dixit, the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words `actual salary' should be read as `actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. 6. Learned counsels for the respondents do not dispute this legal position, however, prayer for enhancement in the compensation is opposed by them. 7. I have heard learned counsels at some length and perused the record and reasons given in the impugned award. 8. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. 6. Learned counsels for the respondents do not dispute this legal position, however, prayer for enhancement in the compensation is opposed by them. 7. I have heard learned counsels at some length and perused the record and reasons given in the impugned award. 8. While deciding issue No.1, the learned Tribunal has clearly given its finding that both the drivers of both vehicles Tata Sumo and truck were negligent in driving their respective vehicles. Therefore, it was clearly a case of composite negligence and not contributory negligence. As far as deceased Sunil Dutt and the injured persons are concerned, who are trvelling as passengers in the vehicle Tata Sumo, cannot be said to have contributed to the said accident in any manner nor there is any such finding of the learned Tribunal below. Since it was a case of composite negligence, the use of the word (va'knk;h) by the learned Tribunal in para 11 of the impugned award is misnomer. The correct Hindi expression for compensation composite negligence is ;ksxnk;h. On the basis of the findings of the learned Tribunal itself since the case of composite negligence is made out, it appears that the Tribunal fell into error in reducing the amount of compensation to the extent of 40% treating it as a case of contributory negligence instead of a case of composite negligence. 9. This Court in Said Peer Asraf Shah Jilani (supra) relying on various decisions of Apex Court and English Law decided in para 9 as under:- “In view of the aforesaid position of law, it appears to be well – settled that qua the passengers of the vehicle, who have not actively contributed in any manner to the said accident and when the other vehicles namely the Truck is comprehensively insured, which fact is not in dispute, then the said Insurance Company is responsible to make good the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal qua those claimants because those claimants had right to proceed against any one of the tortfeasors. Therefore, as far as the order of the Tribunal reducing the payment of compensation to the extent of 50% for other four deceased is concerned, the same cannot be sustained and, therefore, it is directed that the Insurance Company – respondent No.3, who gave comprehensive insurance cover to the truck, will pay the entire amount of compensation for the other four deceased.” 10. In view of the above legal position since the claimants to proceed against either of the tortfeasor there was no justification for reducing the quantum of compensation by 40%. The said part of the award, therefore, deserves to be set aside and the appeal of the claimant deserves to be allowed. 11. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, also this Court finds considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimants that some enhancement on the basis of future prospects of the increase in the income of the deceased Sunil Dutt, who was only aged 35 years at the time of his death caused by the said accident deserves to be granted. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision of Sarla Verma's case held that 50% enhancement in such cases ought to be allowed. 12. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.10,24,000/-deserves to be enhanced by a further sum of Rs.5 lacs. However, it is made clear that the claimants shall not be entitled to any further interest on the said enhancement amount of Rs.5 lacs which should be paid by the insurer of the truck along with 40% reduction made by the learned Tribunal erroneously and which is now set aside by this Court to the claimants of deceased Sunil Dutt within a period of 3 months from today. The injured appellants shall also be similarly entitled to recover their compensation to the extent of 40% as reduced by the Tribunal from the insurer of the truck which should also be paid within the aforesaid period of 3 months. Out of the said enhancement amount of Rs.5 lacs, Rs.1 (rupees one lac) shall be paid by the United India Insurance Company in the `Public Safety Account' to the Transport Commissioner, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur for being utilized for affixing radium reflectors on tractor trolleys, which work is being undertaken by that department in cooperation with other departments of the State Govt. under the directions of this Court in other cases. of Rajasthan, Jaipur for being utilized for affixing radium reflectors on tractor trolleys, which work is being undertaken by that department in cooperation with other departments of the State Govt. under the directions of this Court in other cases. The said amount may also be paid by the Insurance Company within one month from today & compliance report and receipt be filed in this Court. A copy of this order be also sent to the Transport Commissioner, Jaipur and Dy. Commissioner, Transport Department, Jodhpur for information & needful compliance. 13. Accordingly, these three appeals are partly allowed as aforesaid. No order as to costs.