JUDGMENT 1. - The decision rendered in this miscellaneous appeal shall also govern the disposal of other connected appeals being C.M.A. No. 426/2001, 427/2001, 429/2001, 430/2001, 433/2001, 435/2001, 428/2001, 431/2001, 432/2001 and Cross Objection No. 33/2002, 7/2004 and 4/2006 because firstly all these appeals arise out of one award, secondly all are filed by claimants and thirdly all appeals arise out of one vehicular accident. 2. This is a miscellaneous appeal filed by claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (For Short called 'The Act') against an award dated 16.1.2001 passed by MACT, Rajsamand in Claim Case No. 109/98. 3. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of appellants along with other claim petitions out of which connected miscellaneous appeals arise on the ground that claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Act on facts and evidence adduced by the parties for claiming compensation for the death of one Hajarilal is not maintainable. 4. So the question that arises for consideration in this appeal so also in connected appeals is essentially two fold. Firstly whether Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition as being not maintainable under Section 166 ibid and secondly if it is held maintainable then how much compensation, each claimant in their respective claim petition is entitled to claim from the non appellants, for the death of persons who died in vehicular accident in question. 5. Facts of the case are these. 6. On 11.7.1991, 11 persons by name, Shantilal Jain, Prakash Chandra, Devilal, Hajari, Suresh, Ranjit Singh, Chunnidas, Arjunlal, Sunderlal, Kanhaiyalal and Gulab were travelling in one jeep bearing number RPJ 5511 on Rajsamand-Nathdwara road. When the jeep crossed one river (Khari), a Dumper bearing No. RRJ-7661 coming from opposite direction which was being driven by N.A.1/2 dashed to jeep. Due to this dash, the jeep collapsed near the road resulting in death of all the persons mentioned above. 7. It is this event which led to filing of 9 claim petitions out of which these miscellaneous appeals arise by their legal representatives who died in vehicular accident. It was filed under Section 166 of the Act against owner, driver and Insurer of offending vehicle i.e. Dumper which according to claimants dashed to the Jeep in which deceased persons were travelling. All the claim petitions were founded on common allegations as material pleadings. 8. It was filed under Section 166 of the Act against owner, driver and Insurer of offending vehicle i.e. Dumper which according to claimants dashed to the Jeep in which deceased persons were travelling. All the claim petitions were founded on common allegations as material pleadings. 8. It may here be mentioned for completing the narration of the facts that after the incident, an F.I.R. was lodged against the non applicants 1/2 i.e. owner/driver of dumper complaining that it was a case of murder of the persons travelling in jeep alleged to be committed by non applicants who were driving the Dumper. The State accordingly took cognizance of the F.I.R. and prosecuted non applicants No. 1/2 along with others for commission of offence of murder of these persons in ST No. 119/91. Vide judgment dated 9/10-8-94 the Sessions Judge convicted the non applicants 1/2 for commission of murder in Sessions Case No. 27/94 (50/91). The non applicants felt aggrieved filed criminal appeal in the High Court. The High Court, vide judgment dated 4.9.1995 passed in the case of State v. Vijay Singh, (see 1996(1) RCD 387 (Raj.) allowed the criminal appeal of accused and while setting the order of conviction passed by Sessions Judge acquitted the accused (Non applicants No. 1/2) from the charges levelled against them. 9. Coming now to the facts of the claim case out of which these miscellaneous appeals arise, the claimants had initially made an averment in their claim petitions that due to some previous animosity between the deceased persons and the non applicants, the non applicants No.1/2 indulged in commission of offence of murder in this form which resulted in death of these persons. This is what was originally averred in the claim petition:- " 2- gka] mDr ?kVuk esa izkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds ifr ,oa izkFkhZx.k la[;k nks ls pkj ds firk dh e`R;q gks xbZA mDr ?kVuk okLro esa nq?kZVuk ugha Fkh] ijUrq ;g ,d foi{khx.k dk o vU; O;fDr;ksa dk "kM+;a= FkkA izkfFkZ;k ds ifr dks ekSds ij gh ekj fn;s tkus dh ;kstuk FkhA " " 10- fd fnukad 11-7-1991 dks vtqZu yky o muds vU; iq= rFkk izkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds ifr Jh gtkjh th ,oa vU; O;fDr dh ftudh jktlean vnkyr esa is'kh Fkh] bl is'kh ij os viuh thi la[;k vkj0ih0ts0 5511 ls vk jgs Fks fd mDr ?kVuk ds ,d fnu iwoZ fnukad 10-7-1991 dks Hkh l= U;k;ky; jktlaen esa ljdkj cuke lqanj yky oxSjg ds ekeys esa is'kh Fkh vkSj ml fnu xokgku ds c;ku gksus FksA mDr ekeys esa is'kh fnukad 11-7-1991 dks Hkh FkhA iwoZ esa lqUnj yky ds fo:) tks /kkjk 307 Hkk0n0la0 esa Fkk] ftlesa foi{kh la[;k ,d o rhu us xokg ns j[kh Fkh vkSj muds chp vkilh oSeuL;rk vR;f/kd gks pqdh Fkh] pqafd ml ekeys esa foi{kh la[;k 1 o 3 us jkek xkao esa vkdj dkQh >xM+k Qlkn fd;k Fkk] ftlesa lqUnj yky us foi{kh la[;k ,d o 3 ds lkFk tks dkyw yky xqtZj vk;k Fkk ml ij Qk;j fd;k Fkk] ftlls og xaHkhj :i ls ?kk;y gks x;k Fkk vkSj blfy, mDr rkjh[k dks tc esjs ifr o vtqZu yky lqUnj yky oxSjg ds lkFk blfy, vk;s Fks fd okil >xM+k u gks tk; blfy, og jktleUn vk jgs Fks rks foi{kh la[;k 1 o 2 us tks pkyd Fks] MEij dks ysdj igys rks jktuxj vk;s] mUgksaus lqUnj yky oxSjk ftudh igys mUgksaus ryk'k dh rc os ugha feys rks fQj os Meij ysdj ukFk}kjk dh rjQ x;s lqanj yky ges'kk blh thi vkj0ih0ts0 5511 ls is'kh ij vkrk Fkk] blfy, foi{khx.k o muds vkneh vPNh rjhds ls tkurs Fks fd tki dc vk;sxhA tSls gh thi us [kkjh unh dks ikj fd;k vkSj jktuxj dh rjQ [kkjh unh ds vkxs 100 dne cMkjMk dh rjQ ls lkeus ls ,d Meij dks vcks/k xfr ls viuh nq'euh dks iwjk djus ds mns'; ls thi dks vR;f/kd cqjh rjhds ls dqpyus ds fy, xyr lkbZM esa vkdj ds VDdj bruh rsth ls ekjh fd og lM+d ds uhps [kM~Ms esa tkdj fxj xbZ vkSj mlesa cSBs gq, esjs ifr ds vykok vU; tks 10 vkSj Fks] ekSds ij gh cqjh rjg ls pksVsa yxus ls ej x;sA Meij Hkh lM+d ij gh myV x;kA mDr ?kVuk foi{kh la[;k 1 2 o 3 ,oa vU; yksxkas dh feyh Hkxr ls dkfjr dh xbZ gS] ftlesa thi esa cSBs 11 gh O;fDr ekjs x;sA ;g okLro esa ,d nq?kZVuk ugha Fkh ysfdu dRy dk ekeyk Fkk] ftldh dk;Zokgh ekuuh; l= U;k;ky; jktleUn esa pyh vkSj vUr esa bl QkStnkjh izdj.k esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; esa foi{kh fot; flag dks /kkjk 302 Hkk0na0la0 esa cjh dj fn;k vkSj bl ekeys dks gR;k dk ugha ekuk vkSj bl izdkj ls ;g nq?kZVuk dk ekeyk gSA " " 12- fd mDr ?kVuk la[;k ,d o nks us foi{kh la[;k rhu ls feyh Hkxr djds tks fd Meij pkyd ,oa ekfyd gS] us dkfjr dh gS] ftlls fd mUgksaus MEij dk nq:i;ksx dj izkfFkZ;k ds ifr o mlds lkFk ds vU; O;fDr;ksa dks tks thi esa cSBs gq, Fks] dks VDdj ekj dj ekj fn;k gSA mDr ?kVuk ds fy, foi{khx.k la;qDr ,oa i`Fkdr% :i ls ftEesnkj gSA " However, on 5.2.1992, the claimants filed an application for amendment seeking to delete the aforementioned paras and in its place proposed to substitute the following paras:- " 2- gkWa mDr nq?kZVuk esa izkfFkZ;k la0 1 ds ifr o izkFkhZ la0 2] 3 o 4 ds firk dh mDr nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q gks x;h FkhA tks Jh gtkjh th firk Jh xksdy th dqekor mez 30 o"kZ fuoklh ukFk}kjk ftyk jktleUn ( jkt0 ) FksA 10- fd fnukad 11-7-1991 dks Jh gtkjh dqekoe thi esa cSBdj jkek xkao ls jktleUn tk jgs Fks fd lkeus ls mDr Meij dk pkyd foi{kh la0 1 MEij dks rst xfr] ykijokgh ,oa mrkoysiu ls pykdj yk;k o thi ds tksjnkj VDdj ekj nh ftlls thi esa cSBs O;fDr;ksa ds o Jh gtkjh dqekor ds 'kjhj ij xEHkhj ,oa izk.k?kkrd pksVsa vk;h ftlls Jh gtkjh dqekor ,oa thi esa cSBs vU; O;fDr;ksa dh nq?kZVuk LFky ij gh e`R;q gks x;hA 12- fd mDr nq?kZVuk MEij ds pkyd foi{kh la0 1 }kjk MEij dks rst xfr] ykijokgh o mrkoysiu ls pyus ds dkj.k ?kfVr gqbZ gS] tks foi{kh la0 3 dk okgu Lokeh dk ,ts.M gS o foi{kh la0 4 mDr MEij dk vkxksid gSA mDr MEij dk okgu Lokeh }kjk vf/kd`r pkyd foi{kh la0 2 Jh euthr flag Fkk ysfdu oDr nq?kZVuk mlus oDr okgu pykus ds fy, foi{kh la0 1 dks lkSai fn;k Fkk ftlus ;g nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh gSA vr% euthrflag dks Hkh i{kdkj cuk;k x;k gSA vr% oDr nq?kZVuk okgu pkyd ds ukrs foi{kh la0 1 ,oa okgu Lokeh dh vksj ls vf/kd`r okgu pkyd ds ukrs foi{kh la0 4 mDr pkjksa gh foi{khx.k izkFkhZx.k dks gqbZ mDr {kfr dh iwfrZ gsrq la;qDr ,oa i`Fkd i`Fkd mRrjnk;h gSA vr% ,oa muds fo:) ;g Dyse nkok vUrxZr /kkjk 140] 166 eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e ds rgr izLrqr gSA " 10. This amendment application was allowed by Claims Tribunal by order dated 22.5.1999 despite opposition by Insurance Company and accordingly the claim petitions were amended by deleting and substituting respective paras quoted supra as prayed by claimants. The Insurance Company felt aggrieved of amendment being allowed filed writ petition against the order dated 22.5.1999. It was dismissed. The Company then filed appeal being S.A.W. 24/2001. By order dated 24.5.2002, the appeal was dismissed but a liberty was granted to raise this objection in appeal against an award if required. 11. The non applicant no. 1 and 2 remained ex-parte in the claim petition since inception whereas the claim was contested only by Insurance Company. In substance, the defense of Insurance Company was that claim petition is not maintainable on the averments originally made. It was contended that it was not a case of "accident" simpliciter involving two vehicles but it was a case of "murder" committed by non applicants and hence provisions of Section 166 of the Act are not attracted. In other words the contention of Insurance Company while opposing the claim petitions was that when according to claimants- the death was not caused due to vehicular accident with the vehicle (Dumper) but it was on account of murder committed by the non applicants no. 1 to 3 of the persons travelling in jeep, and hence claim petitions are not maintainable under Section 166 ibid. 12. It is this issue which was gone into by the Tribunal on evidence adduced by the parties. By impugned award, the Tribunal concluded that since the death occurred to occupants of jeep on account of conspiracy hatched by the non applicants to commit their murder and hence death though caused in the vehicular accident, it can not be said to have been caused arising out of use of motor vehicle. In other words, the Tribunal held that it was not a case of accident simpliciter with the use of motor vehicle but was a case of murder committed by non applicants no. 1 and 2 of these persons with the use of dumper and hence it does not fall within the four corners of Section 166 of the Act. As a consequence, the claim petitions were dismissed without awarding any compensation to any of the claimants. It is against this award, the claimants have filed these appeals. 13. 1 and 2 of these persons with the use of dumper and hence it does not fall within the four corners of Section 166 of the Act. As a consequence, the claim petitions were dismissed without awarding any compensation to any of the claimants. It is against this award, the claimants have filed these appeals. 13. Learned counsel for appellant (claimant) while assailing the legality of impugned award contended that Tribunal on facts and evidence adduced by the parties committed an error in holding that it was a case of murder of the deceased persons committed by non applicants no. 1/2. It was his submission that once the amendment sought by the claimants was allowed, then the issue in relation to murder was not required to be gone into by the Tribunal. Learned counsel contended that when admittedly it was a case of death involving 2 vehicles, the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act got attracted, entitling the claimants to file a claim petition and claim compensation for the death of those who died in such mishap. Learned counsel contended that assuming that police considered this event to be that of murder and accordingly prosecuted non applicant no.1/2, the fact remained that both the non applicants stood acquitted of the charge of murder in the case by the High Court. It was, therefore, contended that the issue relating to murder was no longer an issue for debate between the parties and hence it could not have been made basis for dismissing the claim petitions. Learned counsel then contended that each claim petition should be allowed and reasonable compensation be awarded to each claimant as claimed by them. 14. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the impugned award. He contended that in the first place, amendment sought by claimant was wrongly allowed. It should have been dismissed because it amounted to seeking withdrawal of the admission made initially in the claim petition. Learned counsel contended that in any event, the evidence on record do make out a case of murder and hence the claim petitions were rightly dismissed as being not entertainable for awarding compensation for the death of deceased persons under Section 166 ibid. 15. Learned counsel contended that in any event, the evidence on record do make out a case of murder and hence the claim petitions were rightly dismissed as being not entertainable for awarding compensation for the death of deceased persons under Section 166 ibid. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record of the case except two appeals in which record of the trial court case is not received, I am inclined to allow the appeals in part and while setting aside the impugned award allow each claim petition and award compensation to each one as indicated infra. 16. The law on this issue was subject matter of some English decision and later fell for consideration before Supreme Court in the case reported in Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2000) ACJ 801 . It is in this case their Lordships after reviewing the English case law applied their ratio while examining the case filed under Section 163- A of the Act for interpreting the expression "death due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle" occurring in the said section. 17. This is what was held in para 9, 10, 12 and 13, which read as under:- "9.A conjoint reading of the above two sub-sections of section 163-A shows that a victim or his heirs are entitled to claim from the owner/insurance company a compensation for death or permanent disablement suffered due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, without having to prove wrongful act or neglect or default of any one. Thus, it is clear, if it is established by the claimants that the death or disablement was caused due to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle then they will be entitled for payment of compensation. In the present case, the contention of the insurance company which was accepted by the High Court is that the death of the deceased (Dasarath Singh) was not caused by an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. Therefore, we will have to examine the actual legal import of the words 'death due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. 10. The question, therefore, is : can a murder be an accident in any given case ? Therefore, we will have to examine the actual legal import of the words 'death due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. 10. The question, therefore, is : can a murder be an accident in any given case ? There is no doubt that 'murder', as it is understood, in the common parlance is a felonious act where death is caused with intent and the perpetrators of that act normally have a motive against the victim for such killing. But, there are also instances where murder can be by accident on a given set of facts. The difference between a 'murder' which is not an accident, and a 'murder' which is an accident depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder. In our opinion, if the dominant intention of the act of felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but is a murder simpliciter, while if the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder. 12. In the case of Nisbet v. Rayne and Burn, (1910) 1 KB 689 , where a cashier, while travelling in a railway to a colliery with a large sum of money for the payment of his employer's workmen, was robbed and murdered. The Court of Appeal held : "That the murder was an 'accident' from the standpoint of the person who suffered from it and that it arose 'out of' an employment which involved more than the ordinary risk, and consequently that the widow was entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. In this case the court followed its earlier judgement in the case of Challis v. London and South Western Railway Company, (1905) 2 KB 154 . In the case of Nisbet, the court also observed that it is contended by the employer that this was not an 'accident' within the meaning of the Act, because it was an intentional felonious act which caused the death, and that the word 'accident' negatives the idea of intention. In my opinion, this contention ought not to prevail. In the case of Nisbet, the court also observed that it is contended by the employer that this was not an 'accident' within the meaning of the Act, because it was an intentional felonious act which caused the death, and that the word 'accident' negatives the idea of intention. In my opinion, this contention ought not to prevail. I think it was an accident from the point of view of Nisbet, and that it makes no difference whether the pistol shot was deliberately fired at Nisbet or whether it was intended for somebody else and not for Nisbet." 13. The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Nisbet's case, (1910) 1 KB 689 , was followed by the majority judgment by the House of Lords in the case of Board of Management of Trim Joint District School v. Kelly, 1914 AC 667 ." 18. Though the expression was interpreted in the context of Section 163-A of the Act, yet in my view, its interpretation is equally applicable while examining the case falling under Section 166 ibid because the words of expression in both the sections i.e. Section 163A and Section 166 ibid are identical except the difference being that in the case falling in Section 163-A, the claimant is not required to prove negligence of driver of other vehicle involved in accident whereas in the case falling under Section 166, he has to prove the negligence of driver. 19. Coming first to the cross objections filed by Insurance Company complaining that Tribunal erred in allowing the amendment proposed by the claimants, I am not inclined to uphold this objection. In my view, it was rightly rejected by allowing the amendment application made by the claimants thereby permitting them to plead the averments to prove their case falling in Section 166 ibid. In the first place, Tribunal had the jurisdiction to allow the amendment. Secondly, the amendment proposed did not change the cause of action originally pleaded in the claim petition. Thirdly it was based on the acquittal of non applicants no. 1 and 2 in the murder case. In the first place, Tribunal had the jurisdiction to allow the amendment. Secondly, the amendment proposed did not change the cause of action originally pleaded in the claim petition. Thirdly it was based on the acquittal of non applicants no. 1 and 2 in the murder case. Fourthly when admittedly the vehicle was involved in causing the death and hence the claimant was entitled to take even an alternative/inconsistent plea in the claim petition to the effect that it was a case of vehicular accident arising out of use of motor vehicle simpliciter entitling them to claim compensation for the death which occurred in such incident due to negligent driving of vehicle. 20. I am not therefore inclined to uphold the objections raised by the Insurance Company opposing the amendment sought by claimants. In my view, it was rightly allowed. 21. Coming now to the facts and evidence of the case and examining the same in the light of law laid down in Rita Devi's case (supra), I am of the considered view that claimants on the amended plea were able to prove that it was a case of vehicular accident in which 11 persons travelling in Jeep died due to rash and negligent driving of the Dumper by its driver. 22. So far as the issue of intention in causing accident is concerned, in my view, once the amendment was allowed permitting the claimants to delete the averments made initially and substitute them by amendment, the only question which was required to be decided on the basis of the averments as they existed in the pleading was whether accident was caused on account of negligence on the part of non-applicants arising out of use of motor vehicle within the meaning of Section 166 of the Act or not? 23. In my opinion, the event in question could not be termed as "Murder Simpliciter" only on the ground that the State registered it to be a case of murder and tried it against the non applicant no.1/2 in Session Court. It is apart from the fact that it eventually resulted in the acquittal of the non applicants No.1/2 from the charge of murder by the High Court. It is apart from the fact that it eventually resulted in the acquittal of the non applicants No.1/2 from the charge of murder by the High Court. The facts of the case in hand has resemblance to the facts involved in the case of Nisbat v. Royne and Burn, (1910) 1 KB 689 which was relied on by Supreme Court in Rita Devi's case supra in para 12 of the report wherein the Court of appeal held the case to be that of accident and not that of murder though an attempt was made to give colour of murder to the accident. 24. I am, therefore, inclined to hold by reversing the finding of Tribunal that event in question which resulted in death of 11 persons on 11.7.1991 was an accident which occurred arising out of the use of two motor vehicles and hence it fell within the four corners of Section 166 of the Act. 25. So far as issue of negligence of driver of Dumper is concerned, it is proved in favour of claimants by the finding of Tribunal itself which reads as under:- " ftl izdkj ls uD'kk ekSdk esa MEij vkj0vkj0ts0 7601 thi esa lkeus ds flj ds ihNs rd ftl ij izdkj ls p<+k gS ,oa MEij viuh lgh fn'kk ls xyr fn'kk esa fcuk fdlh otg ls x;k gS] blls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd fdlh okgu }kjk MEij vkj0vkj0ts0 7601 dks vkosjVsd fd;k gks ,slh fLFkfr ugha gS] MEij vkj0vkj0ts0 7601 dk pkyd viuh lkbZM ls nwljh lkbZM esa ftl izdkj ls x;k gS vkSj ftl izdkj ls ?kVuk ?kfVr gqbZ gS mlls uD'kk ekSdk ls ;g Li"V izrhr gksrk gS fd ;s nq?kZVuk ugha gS] ;|fi ?kVuk gS tks tkucw> dj ?kfVr dh xbZ ?kfVr dh xbZ ?kVuk gSA " 26. Mere perusal of afore quoted finding would go to show that Dumper which was coming from its right direction from opposite direction all of a sudden came to its wrong direction and dashed to Jeep which was coming at its right side. This shows negligence of driver of Dumper which caused the accident. 27. I am, therefore, inclined to uphold the said finding which is already recorded by the Tribunal and the same is not under challenge by any party in this appeal. 28. This shows negligence of driver of Dumper which caused the accident. 27. I am, therefore, inclined to uphold the said finding which is already recorded by the Tribunal and the same is not under challenge by any party in this appeal. 28. I am not inclined to uphold the finding of Tribunal when it was held that claimants failed to prove as to who was driving the dumper. In my view, the claimants were able to prove it. In the first place, it was pleaded in the claim petition. Secondly, the NA-1/2 did not contest the case and remained ex parte. Thirdly, documentary evidence brought on record i.e. documents relating to criminal case, insurance papers etc. would clearly go to show that NA-1/2 were on the driving seat of the dumper in question. Fourthly, since NA- 1/2 were ex parte in the Tribunal and hence adverse inference has to be drawn against them from proving their defence and giving benefit of their absence to claimants. In fact, nothing prevented the non-applicant No.1/2 from filing the written statement and adducing evidence by entering in witness box as party or as witness of the NA-3 i.e. Insurance Company to prove that they or any one of them was not driving the vehicle. Their non-participation in the proceedings must result in drawing adverse inference against them so far as the issue under consideration is concerned. In this view of the matter, I hold that dumper in question was being driven by NA-1 and 2 and was insured with the Insurance Company. 29. In the light of aforementioned findings having been recorded by me, the necessary consequence is that claim petition filed by claimants under Section 166 of the Act was maintainable for claiming compensation for the death of persons who died in vehicular accident on 11.7.1991. 30. This takes me to the next question as to what should be the quantum of compensation that can be awarded to each claimant in these appeals. I may consider it proper to mention that the Tribunal despite dismissing the claim petition should have also recorded a finding on the issue of quantum of compensation payable to each claimant in their respective claim petitions. Indeed, this is what is provided by Order 14, Rule 2 ibid. I may consider it proper to mention that the Tribunal despite dismissing the claim petition should have also recorded a finding on the issue of quantum of compensation payable to each claimant in their respective claim petitions. Indeed, this is what is provided by Order 14, Rule 2 ibid. This is only to avoid remand of the case to Tribunal because once a finding of dismissal is reversed by the appellate court, then remand becomes necessary if no finding on other issue is recorded. I, however, do not consider it proper to remand the case for determination of compensation because firstly, it will result in delay and secondly appellate court is possessed of power to record a finding in appeal even without taking recourse to remand the case. 31. Coming now to CMA No.426/2001, it is a case of death. Once Hazarilal who was occupant of Jeep died. He was aged 30 years and was driver by occupation. He left behind three minor children and wife. It was alleged that he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. 32. I have taken note of the evidence adduced. In the absence of any documentary evidence, I hold on appreciation of oral evidence that deceased's monthly income was Rs. 3,000/--. In this view of the matter, after deducting ⅓rd i.e. Rs. 1,000/-, I get Rs. 2,000/- for determining the compensation. This makes a yearly income of Rs. 2,000 x 12 = 24,000/-. Looking to the age of deceased i.e. 30, I apply the multiplier of 18 as provided in Schedule. In this way, I get a sum of Rs. 24,000 x 18 = 4,32,000/-. To this, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in lump sum towards funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, estate etc. is also awarded. In this way, the claimants are held entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 4,32,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,57,000. 33. The compensation awarded to the claimants is just, reasonable and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these types of cases. Indeed in such cases, no fixed and any static formula is provided for determining the compensation and the same is required to be determined on the basis of evidence adduced and the relevant factors mentioned supra. Indeed in such cases, no fixed and any static formula is provided for determining the compensation and the same is required to be determined on the basis of evidence adduced and the relevant factors mentioned supra. It is on this basis, the courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation. 34. Learned counsel for the appellant cited some authorities for claiming enhancement. I have gone through these authorities. In my opinion and as observed supra, every case depends upon facts of each case and one can rely upon the cases for awarding compensation. 35. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above in para 32. The awarded sum will carry interest at the rate of 4% p.a. from the date of application till realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge.No cost. 36. This takes me to other appeals being C.M.A. No. 427/2001. This is also a death case. One Suresh aged 33 years, died in vehicular accident in question. He was engaged in business of hotel line in Udaipur and was said to be earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. He was survived by 3 minor children and wife. 37. I have taken note of the evidence adduced. In the absence of any documentary evidence on the issue of monthly income, I hold on appreciation of oral evidence that deceased's monthly income was Rs. 3,000/--. In this view of the matter, after deducting ⅓rd i.e. Rs. 1,000/-, I get Rs. 2,000/- for determining the compensation. This makes a yearly income of Rs. 2,000 x 12 = 24,000/-. Looking to the age of deceased i.e. 30, I apply the multiplier of 18 as provided in Schedule. In this way, I get a sum of Rs. 24,000 x 18 = 4,32,000/-. To this, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in lump sum towards funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, estate etc. is also awarded. In this way, the claimants are held entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 4,32,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,57,000. 38. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above in para 37. The enhanced sum will carry interest at the rate of 4% p.a. from the date of application till realization. 4,32,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,57,000. 38. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above in para 37. The enhanced sum will carry interest at the rate of 4% p.a. from the date of application till realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge.No cost. 39. This takes me to other appeal being C.M.A. No. 429/2001. One Gulabji aged 38 years died in vehicular accident in question. He was agriculturist and milk vendor and was said to be earning Rs. 4000/- per month. He was survived by four children and wife. 40. I have taken note of the evidence adduced. In the absence of any documentary evidence, I hold on appreciation of oral evidence that deceased's monthly income was Rs. 3,000/--. In this view of the matter, after deducting ⅓rd i.e. Rs. 1,000/-, I get Rs. 2,000/- for determining the compensation. This makes a yearly income of Rs. 2,000 x 12 = 24,000/-. Looking to the age of deceased i.e. 30, I apply the multiplier of 16 as provided in Schedule. In this way, I get a sum of Rs. 24,000 x 16 = 3,84,000. To this, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in lump sum towards funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, estate etc. is also awarded. In this way, the claimants are held entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 3,84,000/- + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,09,000/-. 41. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above in para 40. The enhanced sum will carry interest at the rate of 4% p.a. from the date of application till realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge.No cost. 42. This takes me to another appeal being C.M.A. No. 430/2001. One Ranjeet aged 30 years died in accident in question. He was driver/owner of vehicle and is said to be earning Rs. 3000/- per month. He was survived by 3 minor children and wife. 43. I have taken note of the evidence adduced. In the absence of any documentary evidence, I hold on appreciation of oral evidence that deceased's monthly income was Rs. 3,000/-. In this view of the matter, after deducting ⅓rd i.e. Rs. 1,000/-, I get Rs. 2,000/- for determining the compensation. He was survived by 3 minor children and wife. 43. I have taken note of the evidence adduced. In the absence of any documentary evidence, I hold on appreciation of oral evidence that deceased's monthly income was Rs. 3,000/-. In this view of the matter, after deducting ⅓rd i.e. Rs. 1,000/-, I get Rs. 2,000/- for determining the compensation. This makes a yearly income of Rs. 2,000 x 12 = 24,000/-. Looking to the age of deceased i.e. 30, I apply the multiplier of 18 as provided in Schedule. In this way, I get a sum of Rs. 24,000 x18 = 4,32,000/-. To this, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in lump sum towards funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, estate etc. is also awarded. In this way, the claimants are held entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 4,32,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,57,000/-. 44. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above in para 43. The enhanced sum will carry interest at the rate of 4% p.a. from the date of application till realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge.No cost. 45. This takes me to next appeal being C.M.A. No. 433/2001. One Arjunlal aged 65 years died in accident in question. He was an agriculturist. He was survived by wife and son. 46. I have taken note of the evidence adduced. In the absence of any documentary evidence, I hold on appreciation of record of this appeal that deceased's monthly income was Rs. 2,000/-. In this view of the matter, after deducting around ⅓rd, I get around Rs. 1500/- for determining the compensation. This makes a yearly income of Rs. 1500 x 12 = 18,000/-. Looking to the age of deceased i.e. 65, I apply the multiplier of 5 as provided in Schedule. In this way, I get a sum of Rs. 18,000 x 5 = 90,000/-. To this, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in lump sum towards funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, estate etc. is also awarded. In this way, the claimants are held entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 90,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 1,15,000/-. 47. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above in para-46. is also awarded. In this way, the claimants are held entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 90,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 1,15,000/-. 47. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above in para-46. The enhanced sum will carry interest at the rate of 4% p.a. from the date of application till realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. 48. This takes me to next appeal being C.M.A. No. 435/2001. It is a death case. One Kanhaiyalal aged 32 years died in accident in question. He was doing business of Kirana Shop and was said to be earning Rs. 3000/- per month. He was survived by 2 minor children and dependent father. 49. I have taken note of the evidence adduced. In the absence of any documentary evidence, I hold on appreciation of oral evidence that deceased's monthly income was Rs. 2,000/--. In this view of the matter, after deducting around ⅓rd i.e. Rs. 1,000/-, I get around Rs. 1500/- for determining the compensation. This makes a yearly income of Rs. 1500 x 12 = 18,000/-. Looking to the age of deceased i.e. 30, I apply the multiplier of 17 as provided in Schedule. In this way, I get a sum of Rs. 18,000 x 17 = 3,06,000/-. To this, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in lump sum towards funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, estate etc. is also awarded. In this way, the claimants are held entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 3,06,000/- + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 3,31,000/-. 50. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above in para 49. The enhanced sum will carry interest at the rate of 4% p.a. from the date of application till realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge.No cost. 51. This takes me to another appeal being C.M.A. No. 432/2001. It is a death case. One Shantilal aged 30 years died in accident in question. He was doing business of supply of building material. He was survived by wife and 3 minor children and father. 52. I have taken note of the evidence adduced. On evaluating the record of this appeal, I hold that deceased's monthly income was around Rs. 3,000/-. One Shantilal aged 30 years died in accident in question. He was doing business of supply of building material. He was survived by wife and 3 minor children and father. 52. I have taken note of the evidence adduced. On evaluating the record of this appeal, I hold that deceased's monthly income was around Rs. 3,000/-. In this view of the matter, after deducting ⅓rd i.e. Rs. 1,000/-, I get Rs. 2,000/- for determining the compensation. This makes a yearly income of Rs. 2,000 x 12 = 24,000/-. Looking to the age of deceased i.e. 30, I apply the multiplier of 18 as provided in Schedule. In this way, I get a sum of Rs. 24,000 x 18 = 4,32,000/-. To this, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in lump sum towards funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, estate etc. is also awarded. In this way, the claimants are held entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 4,32,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,57,000/-. 53. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above in para 52. The enhanced sum will carry interest at the rate of 4% p.a. from the date of application till realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge.No cost. 54. This takes me to another appeal being C.M.A.No. 428/2001. It is a death case. One Sunderlal aged 32 years died in accident in question. He was doing business of dairy. He was survived by wife and 4 minor children. He was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. 55. I have taken note of the evidence adduced. On its evaluation, I hold that deceased's monthly income was Rs. 3,000/-. In this view of the matter, after deducting ⅓rd i.e. Rs. 1,000/-, I get Rs. 2,000/- for determining the compensation. This makes a yearly income of Rs. 2,000 x 12 = 24,000/-. Looking to the age of deceased i.e. 30, I apply the multiplier of 17 as provided in Schedule. In this way, I get a sum of Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000/-. To this, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in lump sum towards funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, estate etc. is also awarded. In this way, the claimants are held entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000/-. 56. In this way, I get a sum of Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000/-. To this, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in lump sum towards funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, estate etc. is also awarded. In this way, the claimants are held entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000/-. 56. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above in para 55. The enhanced sum will carry interest at the rate of 4% p.a. from the date of application til realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge.No cost. 57. This takes me to last appeal being C.M.A. No. 431/2001. It is a death case. One Prakiash Chandra aged 30 years died in accident in question. He was doing business of dairy in Mumbai. He was survived by wife and 2 minor children. He was earning Rs. 8000/- per month. 58. I have taken note of the evidence adduced. In the absence of any documentary evidence, I hold that deceased's monthly income was Rs. 3,000/-. In this view of the matter, after deducting ⅓rd i.e. Rs. 1,000/-, I get Rs. 2,000/- for determining the compensation. This makes a yearly income of Rs. 2,000 x 12 = 24,000/-. Looking to the age of deceased i.e. 30, I apply the multiplier of 18 as provided in Schedule. In this way, I get a sum of Rs. 24,000 x 18 = 4,32,000/-. To this, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in lump sum towards funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, estate etc. is also awarded. In this way, the claimants are held entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 4,32,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,57,000/-. 59. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above in para-58. The enhanced sum will carry interest at the rate of 4% p.a. from the date of application till realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge.No cost.Appeals partly allowed. *******