JUDGMENT : N.K. Mody, J. This order shall also govern disposal of M.A. Nos. 3345, 3346, 3348, 3349 and 3352 of 2009 and 292 of 2010 as all these appeals are arising out of an award dated 31.8.2009 passed by 17th M.A.C.T., Indore, in Claim Case Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27, 196 and 399 of 2008. In all these appeals, the claimants are different and the appeals arose out of one accident. Status of all the appeals are as under: M.A. No. 292 of 2010 is the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 against the award in Claim Case No. 24 of 2008, whereby claim petition filed by the appellant has been allowed and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,90,000 on account of death of Sattar and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have been exonerated while M.A. No. 3351 of 2009 is also the appeal against the same award filed by the appellants for enhancement of amount of compensation and for quashment of the findings relating to exoneration of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the rest of the appeals are filed by the appellants-claimants, who are injured. 2. Short facts of the case are that claim petitions were filed by appellants alleging that on 13.6.2007 Sattar was travelling from Ajmer to Indore in a Qualis car bearing registration No. MP 09-V 2454 along with his family, who are claimants in other cases. The offending Qualis car was being driven at the relevant time by respondent No. 5, owned by respondent No. 4. It was alleged that at about 3.15 a.m., the said car met with an accident with a stationary truck bearing registration No. MP 09-K 4678 which was standing on a roadside near dhaba without any signals. It was alleged that the offending truck was owned by respondent No. 1, insured with respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 2 was the driver, who had wrongly parked the truck negligently. It was alleged that in the said accident Sattar died while others were injured including respondent No. 5 who was the driver of Qualis car. Claim petitions were filed by the appellants for compensation on account of death of Sattar and for compensation for the injuries sustained by the injured Shahajad Bi, widow of the deceased, and also by Summat Bi, Israil Patel. Aslam and Raisa Bi. Claim petitions were filed by the appellants for compensation on account of death of Sattar and for compensation for the injuries sustained by the injured Shahajad Bi, widow of the deceased, and also by Summat Bi, Israil Patel. Aslam and Raisa Bi. All the claim petitions were filed u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. During pendency, claim petitions filed by the other claimants except Shahajad Bi were converted as claim petitions u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. In the claim petition, which was filed by Shahajad Bi, for the compensation on account of death of Sattar, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were impleaded as party who was driver and owner of the offending car while in other claim petitions, claim petitions were filed only against the owner, driver and insurance company of the offending truck. Claim petitions were contested by the respondent No. 3 on various grounds including on the ground that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 5. Therefore respondent Nos. 1 to 3 cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal by the impugned award allowed the claim petition filed by the appellants holding that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 5, therefore, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 cannot be held liable for payment of compensation, however, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,90,000 with the direction to respondent Nos. 4 to 5 to pay the amount, while in other claim petitions in which respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were not impleaded as party, the claim petitions were dismissed on the ground that since the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 5 and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were not made party, therefore, no compensation can be awarded to the rest of claimants. Against the award, appeals have been filed. In M.A. No. 3351 of 2009 learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,500 and deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 17 and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,90,000, break-up of which is as under: 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the accident is of the year 2007. In M.A. No. 3351 of 2009 learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,500 and deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 17 and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,90,000, break-up of which is as under: 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the accident is of the year 2007. The income of the deceased assessed by the learned Tribunal is on lower side, the deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses is on higher side, the amount awarded on other heads is also on lower side. Learned counsel submits that since in M.A. Nos. 3351 and 3352 of 2009, claim petitions were filed u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein negligence of the driver is not required to be examined and on account of no fault liability claimants are entitled for compensation but in spite of that learned Tribunal illegally examined the fault and held that no compensation can be awarded from respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in M.A. No. 3352 of 2009 which was the claim petition filed by Shahajad Bi on account of injuries. Learned counsel further submitted that criminal case was registered against respondent No. 2, who was the driver of the offending truck. The claimants in all the claim petitions were eyewitnesses of the accident who were examined and narrated that in what circumstances the accident took place. Respondent No. 2 did not contest the case and no effort was made by the respondent No. 3 to examine the respondent No. 2. It is submitted that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the accident occurred on account of contributory negligence of the respondent No. 5, then too, the claim petition could not have been dismissed as the appellants in all the claim petitions were third party and it was the case of joint tortfeasors. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 748 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that where a person is injured as a result of negligence of two or more wrongdoers, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of entire damages and the injured has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. Karvarnan and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 748 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that where a person is injured as a result of negligence of two or more wrongdoers, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of entire damages and the injured has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, claim petition filed by the claimants could not have been dismissed on the ground that the claimants have not included respondent Nos. 4 and 5, owner and driver of the offending Qualis car, as party to the proceedings. Learned counsel further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal filed by appellant be allowed and the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal be set aside and the impugned award passed in M.A. No. 3351 of 2009 whereby respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were exonerated be set aside and the amount be enhanced and in other appeals the award whereby the claim petitions have been dismissed be set aside and an adequate amount of compensation be awarded. 4. Mr. R.N. Dave, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5, submits that the award passed in M.A. No. 3351 of 2009 is just and proper and no case for enhancement is made out. So far as exoneration of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is concerned, learned counsel supports the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants. In addition, learned counsel submits that the offending truck was parked in the middle of the road without giving any signals and to prove this fact respondent No. 5 who was driver of offending vehicle, i.e., Qualis car was examined and whose statement was supported by other eyewitnesses who were travelling in the said car. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no justification on the part of the learned Tribunal in holding that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 5. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no justification on the part of the learned Tribunal in holding that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 5. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambabu Singh and Others, (2008) ACJ 523, wherein the motor cycle dashed against a parked tractor-trolley on the road in the midnight without any warning, sign or indication which caused death of motorcyclist and pillion rider, it was held that statement of defence witness that he had crossed the stationary tractor-trolley without dashing the same is not sufficient to hold that the deceased was also liable for the accident. In this case, witness also deposed that due to mist things were not visible at the time of accident. Tribunal held that driver of stationary tractor-trolley was solely responsible for the accident. Division Bench of this court upheld the finding. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the case of Smt. Pushpa and Others Vs. Rai Singh and Others, (2009) ACJ 1346, wherein tractor trolley was parked on the road in the night without parking lights on or any indication and a scooter dashed against tractor-trolley and pillion rider sustained fatal injuries, scooterist who was also injured corroborated the claimants' version and deposed that he was dazzled by the headlights of a truck coming from the opposite direction. Police charge-sheeted the driver of tractor-trolley, Tribunal held that scooterist was negligent. A Division Bench of this court reversed the findings of Tribunal and held that driver of tractor-trolley failed to take necessary care and caution while parking his vehicle and the accident occurred due to his negligence and also due to negligence of the truck driver who failed to use dipper, hence, claimants are entitled to get compensation from any of the joint tortfeasors. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of Magan Vs. Shakil and Others, (2006) 2 ACC 313, wherein the accident proved by the injured and duly corroborated by other witnesses, driver of vehicle not examined who was best witness, this court held that accident and negligent act stand proved. Lastly, reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Mohd. Riazuddin @ Mohd. Riaz and Others Vs. Shakil and Others, (2006) 2 ACC 313, wherein the accident proved by the injured and duly corroborated by other witnesses, driver of vehicle not examined who was best witness, this court held that accident and negligent act stand proved. Lastly, reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Mohd. Riazuddin @ Mohd. Riaz and Others Vs. Narain Singh and Others, (2009) ACJ 1871, wherein the deceased was repairing gear box of truck parked on the road, another truck came from behind and hit the parked truck which moved and crushed the deceased under the wheels and claimants filed claim against both trucks in which Tribunal held some negligence of truck which hit the parked truck, the Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court held that it was a case of composite negligence as the driver of parked truck failed to take abundant precaution to avoid any sort of accident, both truck drivers held equally negligent and each liable to pay half of the award. On the strength of the aforesaid position of law learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submits that the appeal filed by the appellants and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 be allowed and the findings whereby the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were exonerated be set aside. 5. Mr. Vinay Vijayvargiya, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, submits that after due appreciation of evidence on record, learned Tribunal has rightly found that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 5. Learned counsel submits that since in other claim petitions filed by the claimants on account of injuries, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were not impleaded as party, therefore, learned Tribunal committed no error in dismissing the claim petitions. Learned counsel submits that it is true that respondent No. 2, driver of the offending truck, was not examined by the respondent No. 3 to prove that in what circumstances accident took place but from the evidence adduced by the appellants themselves it is amply proved that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 5. It is submitted that after due appreciation of the evidence, learned Tribunal has found that it was respondent No. 5 who was negligent in driving the offending Qualis car which caused accident in which Sattar died and other appellants sustained injuries. It is submitted that after due appreciation of the evidence, learned Tribunal has found that it was respondent No. 5 who was negligent in driving the offending Qualis car which caused accident in which Sattar died and other appellants sustained injuries. Learned counsel submits that claim petitions were filed u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act but later on by submitting an application for amendment claim petitions were converted as u/s 166 of the Motor-Vehicles Act except Claim Petition No. 24 of 2008 wherein compensation on account of death of Sattar was claimed. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal filed by the appellants and also filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 be dismissed. 6. From perusal of the record it appears that claim petition filed by Shahajad Bi on account of injuries numbered as Claim Case No. 25 of 2008 was u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Similarly, Claim Petition No. 24 of 2008 filed by Shahajad Bi on account of death of Sattar was also filed u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and these two petitions were not converted as u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, while the other claim petitions were filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. To prove the case record of criminal case has been filed which is exhibited as Exhs. P1 to P6. F.I.R. has been lodged against truck driver. The accident took place at 3.15 a.m. and the intimation was received by police at 5.30 a.m. The intimation was given to the police by one Irfan, who was also travelling in the said Qualis car. Apart from documents produced in evidence, to prove the accident each of the appellants examined himself/herself as PW 1, Summat Bi, Raisa Bi and Israil. No evidence was adduced by respondent No. 3 to prove that in what circumstances the accident occurred. In the F.I.R. lodged by co-passenger it is stated that the accident occurred because of wrong parking of the offending truck, that too, without giving signals. Exh. P6 is the spot map prepared by the police after lodging of F.I.R., wherein offending truck is shown as parked on Neemuch-Mhow Road. 7. In the F.I.R. lodged by co-passenger it is stated that the accident occurred because of wrong parking of the offending truck, that too, without giving signals. Exh. P6 is the spot map prepared by the police after lodging of F.I.R., wherein offending truck is shown as parked on Neemuch-Mhow Road. 7. After carefully examining the statement of Aslam who is respondent No. 5 and is driver of Qualis car and also keeping in view the documentary evidence, viz., F.I.R., spot map, and the fact that respondent No. 2 remained ex parte, this court is of the view that sufficient evidence is on record to show that the accident had occurred because of negligence on the part of the respondent No. 5 and also on the part of the respondent No. 2. Therefore, at the most it was a case of joint tortfeasors. Since appellants in all the cases except the appeal filed by Aslam which is numbered as M.A. No. 3349 of 2008 claim applications could not have been dismissed on the ground that since the respondent No. 5 was at fault and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were not impleaded as party, therefore, the claimants are not entitled for compensation. 8. So far as M.A. Nos. 3351 of 2009 and 292 of 2010 are concerned, the accident is of the year 2007, therefore, this court is of the view that the income of the deceased Sattar assessed by the learned Tribunal is on lower side which ought to have been assessed at Rs. 3,000 per month. Since the appellant Nos. 1 to 4 are directly dependent on the deceased being wife and daughters, therefore, deduction ought to have been 1/4th instead of 1/3rd. Appellants of M.A. No. 3351 of 2009 are entitled for the following amount: 9. Thus, in my opinion in M.A. No. 3351 of 2008, it will be proper to enhance the compensation by Rs. 2,09,000. In other words, in view of this, the appellants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 4,99,000 instead of Rs. 2,90,000 by way of compensation for the death of Sattar in the accident. The enhanced amount of Rs. 2,09,000 shall carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of application. 2,09,000. In other words, in view of this, the appellants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 4,99,000 instead of Rs. 2,90,000 by way of compensation for the death of Sattar in the accident. The enhanced amount of Rs. 2,09,000 shall carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of application. Since Claim Petition No. 24 of 2008 was filed u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and otherwise also there was no justification on the part of the learned Tribunal to find out who was at fault and to dismiss the claim petition holding that since the respondent No. 2 was not at fault, therefore, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are not liable for compensation. In view of this, M.A. No. 3351 of 2009 of which cross-appeal is M.A. No. 292 of 2010 stands allowed and the finding whereby respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have been exonerated, stands quashed. Appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,99.000 instead of Rs. 2,90,000 which shall be payable by the respondents jointly and severally. 10. So far as M.A. No. 3319 of 2009 of which claim petition No. 199 of 2009 is concerned, wherein appellant is Aslam who is respondent No. 5 herein, is concerned, since he himself was driving Qualis car and was also responsible for the accident, therefore, respondent No. 5 is entitled for 50 per cent of the amount of compensation. 11. So far as other claim petitions are concerned, in which claimants Shahajad Bi, Summat Bi, Raisa Bi and Israil are concerned, it is true that learned Tribunal dismissed claim petitions but at the same time while dismissing the claim petitions it was the duty of the learned Tribunal to assess the amount of compensation so that in case the appeal filed before this court is allowed, then too, the case can be decided finally without remanding the same. Since the amount of compensation has not been assessed by the learned Tribunal, therefore, this court is left with no option except to remand the case back to the Tribunal. In view of this, appeals filed by above named claimants numbered as M.A. Nos. Since the amount of compensation has not been assessed by the learned Tribunal, therefore, this court is left with no option except to remand the case back to the Tribunal. In view of this, appeals filed by above named claimants numbered as M.A. Nos. 3345, 3346, 3348, 3349 and 3352 of 2009 are allowed and the award passed by the learned Tribunal so far as it relates to Shahajad Bi, Summat Bi, Raisa Bi, Israil and Aslam are concerned, stand set aside holding that appellants are entitled to claim compensation and the opposite parties, who are respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in these appeals, are liable for payment of compensation. The parties are directed to remain present before the learned Tribunal on 28.1.2012. Learned Tribunal is directed to assess the compensation on the basis of the evidence which has already been adduced by the parties, which shall be payable to the appellants in each of the cases by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. In M.A. No. 3349 of 2009 wherein appellant-injured is Aslam who is respondent No. 5 herein shall be entitled to 50 per cent of the amount of compensation assessed as the respondent No. 5 is equally liable for the accident. With the aforesaid, appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be placed in the record of the aforesaid connected miscellaneous appeals. Appeals allowed.