Hon'ble MODY, J.—This Order shall also govern the disposal of MA Nos.291/2006, 292/2006 and 559/2006 as in all the appeals award under challenge is dated 29/10/2005 passed by MACT, Bioara. Full particulars of each of the case are mentioned hereinbelow :- Sl. No. MA No. Appellant/Deceased Claim Case No. Award 1. 290/2006 Rishi Kumar/ Koshalyabai 50/2002 1,72,000/- 2. 291/2006 Babulal Varma/ Ashok Kumar 49/2002 86,000/- 3. 292/2006 Rishi Kumar/ Shivprasad 51/2002 1,72,000/- 4. 559/2006 Premnarayan/Sanjay 52/2002 1,52,000/- 2. Short facts of the case are that appellants in all the appeals filed a claim petition alleging that in the intervening night of 15/16 of February, 2002 Ashok Verma, Kaushalyabai, Shivprasad and Sanjay were travelling in a Maruti Car bearing registration No.MP-04/ J/1507 from Bioara to Narsinghgarh and said vehicle was being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently with the result met with an accident with a truck bearing registration No.MBD/7540 in which all the four persons died. It was alleged that at the time of accident offending Maruti Car was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. It was further alleged truck bearing registration No.MBD/7540 was owned by respondent No.5 and respondents No.4 and 6 were drivers on the offending truck. It was alleged that claim petition filed by the appellant be allowed and the compensation be awarded. The claim petition was contested by the respondents by filing a separate written statement wherein the liability was denied. It was prayed that claim petition be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded the compensation as stated above, however, it was only respondents No. 4 and 6 who were held liable for payment of compensation and claim petition against respondents No.1 to 3 was dismissed against which the present appeals has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that the impugned award passed by learned tribunal is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set-aside so far as it relates to exoneration of respondents No.1 to 3. It is submitted that all the four persons were travelling in the Maruti Car alongwith Vijay Bhilala. It is submitted that respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle. It is submitted that it is found proved in the claim petition that accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 which is not correct. It is submitted that all the four persons were travelling in the Maruti Car alongwith Vijay Bhilala. It is submitted that respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle. It is submitted that it is found proved in the claim petition that accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 which is not correct. Infact accident occurred because of negligence of drivers of both the vehicles, therefore, learned tribunal committed error in exonerating the respondents No.1 to 3. It is submitted that learned tribunal also committed error in holding that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.4 who was driver of the truck. It is submitted that it was a case of contributory negligence, therefore, appellant is entitled for compensation from any of the tort-feasor. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Sushila Bhadoriya (Smt.) vs. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation 2005(1) JLJ 15 wherein Full Bench of this Court has held that in a case of composite negligence both the joint tort-feasors are not necessary parties and it is not possible to apportion ratio of negligence of each tort-feasor. It was further held that award can be passed against both or any one of them. Learned counsel further submits that in death case the amount awarded is grossly inadequate which deserves to be enhanced. It is submitted that appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and the impugned award passed by learned tribunal be set-aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that in the claim case it was found that accident occurred because of negligence of truck driver i.e. respondent No.4. It is submitted that Vijay Bhilala who was also a passenger in the said Car stated that because of negligence on the part of respondent No.4 accident occurred. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned tribunal committed no error in exonerating the respondents No.1 to 3. It is submitted that appeal filed by the appellant has no merits and the same be dismissed. 5. To prove the case appellants in all the appeals examined the claimants and also submitted the record of criminal case. Ex.P/1 is the FIR. Name of complainant is mentioned as Bharat Sahu. It is submitted that appeal filed by the appellant has no merits and the same be dismissed. 5. To prove the case appellants in all the appeals examined the claimants and also submitted the record of criminal case. Ex.P/1 is the FIR. Name of complainant is mentioned as Bharat Sahu. The date of accident is 15.2.2002 at about 12.00 PM and the complaint has been lodged on 16.2.2002 at about 1.40 AM. In the complaint it is alleged that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck. In claim case No.50/2002 wherein the claimants are Rishi Kumar and other and compensation is claimed on account of death of Smt. Kaushalyabai, appellants has examined Ghisalal as AW/1, who is the father-in-law of deceased Kaushalyabai, Vijay Bhilala AW/2, Premnarayan AW/3 and Babulal AW/4. In claim case No. 15/2002 of which MA No. is 290/2006 is filed by Rishi Kumar for compensation on account of death of Shiv Prasad, appellants has examined same set of witnesses. In claim case No.49/2002 of which MA No. is 291/2006 wherein claim case has been filed by Babulal and others for compensation on account of death of Ashok Varma S/o Babulal Varma, appellants has examined Babulal AW/1, who has stated that Ashok was the driver on the Maruti Car. In claim case No. 52/2002 of which MA No. is 559/2006 filed by the appellants Premnarayan and others wherein compensation is claimed on account of death of Sanjay, same set of witness is adduced. Devchand /respondent No.1 has examined himself who has stated that accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the truck, however, he has further stated that he was not conscious at the time of accident as he sustained grievous injuries. In defence respondent No.3/ Insurance Company has filed the copy of award dated 2.7.2005 passed in claim case No.119/2004 wherein the claimant is Devchand/ respondent No.1 herein wherein claim case was allowed and compensation of Rs.74,201/- was awarded on account of injuries sustained by Devchand. In this case certified copy of the statement of Devchand/respondent No.1 given in the claim case No.119/2004 has been filed but the same has not been exhibited. Ex.D/1 is the award passed in case No.120/2004 which was filed by Deepak wherein compensation has been awarded for a sum of Rs.62,000/-. In this case certified copy of the statement of Devchand/respondent No.1 given in the claim case No.119/2004 has been filed but the same has not been exhibited. Ex.D/1 is the award passed in case No.120/2004 which was filed by Deepak wherein compensation has been awarded for a sum of Rs.62,000/-. Ex.D/2 is the award is dated 01/07/2005 in claim case No.121/2004 in which witness was Vijay Bhilala and in this case also compensation awarded is Rs.39,293/-. In all these cases driver, owner and insurance company of the offending car was exonerated. 6. In all the cases learned tribunal has exonerated the respondent No.3/Insurance Company with whom the offending truck was insured on the ground that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the offending Maruti Car. The findings given by the learned tribunal relating to exoneration cannot be allowed to sustain because of the following reasons :- (1) To prove the fact that the accident was because of rash and negligent driving of offending truck, the best witness was respondent No.1 but he was not examined by respondent No.3. (2) Another eye-witness was Bharat Sahu who was travelling in the Car and also lodged the FIR but was not examined by respondent No.3. (3) Spot map which was prepared in the criminal case was not filed by the respondent No.3 to prove the exact location of accident to ascertain the fact that whether the driver of truck was at fault. (4) Investigating Officer was not examined to prove the contents of FIR and also to prove that how it was found in the investigation that accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. (5) No Private Investigator was appointed to investigate the circumstance in which accident took place. (6) Statement of Respondent No.1 Devchand given in other claim cases of which certified copies were filed by the respondent No.3 was not proved as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act. (7) Accident occurred from the back side of the truck. This fact itself speaks that since the respondent No.1 was in high speed therefore respondent No.1 lost his control and also respondent No.1 did not maintain a safe distance between the two vehicles. 7. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, in MA No.291/2006 which is arising out of claim case No.49/2002 deceased is Ashok aged 25 years. This fact itself speaks that since the respondent No.1 was in high speed therefore respondent No.1 lost his control and also respondent No.1 did not maintain a safe distance between the two vehicles. 7. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, in MA No.291/2006 which is arising out of claim case No.49/2002 deceased is Ashok aged 25 years. Learned tribunal after assessing the dependency @ Rs.1,000/- per month applied the multiplier of 7 and awarded Rs.84,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.2,000/-towards funeral expenses. Deceased/Ashok was married whose widow is respondent No.7. He was also having a son/Roshan aged 4 years. Even if the respondent No.7 has re-married, then too, for the purpose of assessing the loss of dependency half of the amount could not have been deducted on account on personal expenses of the deceased. Since the accident is of the year 2002, therefore, income @ Rs.2,000/- per month has rightly been assessed 1/3rd amount ought to have been deducted towards personal expenses and keeping in view the age of Roshan, son of the deceased who was 4 years multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied. Thus, the appellants are entitled for the following amount :- Rs. 2,40,000/- Towards loss of dependency Rs. 5,000/- Towards funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Towards loss of estate Rs. 5,000/- Towards loss of consortium Rs. 15,000/- Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 2,70,000/- Total 8. In view of this, appeal (MA No.291/2006) filed by the appellants is allowed and appellants are entitled for a total sum of Rs.2,70,000/- instead of Rs.86,000/-. The enhanced amount is Rs.1,84,000/-. It is made clear that out of this amount an amount of Rs.86,000/- awarded earlier by learned tribunal shall be payable to appellants while out of the enhanced amount Rs.1,84,000/-, 80% amount shall be deposited in the name of Roshan under the guardianship of appellant No.2 who is grand-mother of son/Roshan who shall take full care of education of Roshan. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by the appellant/Insurance Company with the learned tribunal and the learned tribunal is directed to invest 80% of the said amount on long term fixed deposit in the name of appellant No.2 in the nearest Nationalized Bank, in the area where the appellant No.2 is residing, with the condition that the Bank will not permit any loan or advance. Interest on the said amount shall be credited on monthly basis in S.B. Account of appellant No.2, which shall be opened by the appellant No.2 from where appellant No.2 can withdraw the amount as per needs of Roshan. However, on an application by the appellant No.2, this condition could be modified by the learned tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellant No.2. 9. So far as MA No.559/2006 which is arising out of claim case No.52/2002 wherein the deceased is Sanjay who was aged 25 to 30 years. Learned tribunal has taken loss of dependency @ Rs.10,000/- per annum and also awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses which is on lower side. The income of the deceased ought to have assessed @ Rs.2,000/- per month after deducting 1/3rd amount multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied, thus, the appellants are entitled for the following amount :- Rs. 2,40,000/- Towards loss of dependency Rs. 5,000/- Towards funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Towards loss of estate Rs. 25,000/- Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 2,75,000/- Total 10. In view of this, appeal (MA No.559/2006) filed by the appellants is allowed and appellants are entitled for total a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- instead of Rs.1,52,000/-. The enhanced amount is Rs.1,23,000/-. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by the appellant/Insurance Company with the learned tribunal and the learned tribunal is directed to invest 80% of the said amount on long term fixed deposit in the name of appellant No.2 in the nearest Nationalized Bank, in the area where the appellant No.2 is residing, with the condition that the Bank will not permit any loan or advance. Interest on the said amount shall be credited on monthly basis in S.B. Account of appellant No.2, which shall be opened by the appellant No.2 from where appellant No.2 can withdraw the amount as per her needs. However, on an application by the appellant No.2, this condition could be modified by the learned tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellant No.2. 11. So far as MA No.290/2006 which is arising out of claim case No.51/2002 wherein the deceased is Shivprasad who was aged 32 years after assessing the income @ Rs.15,000/- per annum deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 17 and Rs.2,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses which is on lower side. 11. So far as MA No.290/2006 which is arising out of claim case No.51/2002 wherein the deceased is Shivprasad who was aged 32 years after assessing the income @ Rs.15,000/- per annum deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 17 and Rs.2,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses which is on lower side. Income ought to have been assessed @ Rs.2,000/- per month, after deducting 1/3rd amount and also after applying the multiplier of 17, the appellants are entitled for the following amount :- Rs. 2,72,000/- Towards loss of dependency Rs. 5,000/- Towards funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Towards loss of estate Rs. 25,000/- Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 3,07,000/- Total 12. In view of this, appeal (MA No.292/2006) filed by the appellants is allowed and appellants are entitled for total a sum of Rs.3,07,000/- instead of Rs.1,72,000/-. The enhanced amount is Rs.1,35,000/-. It is made clear that awarded amount shall be deposited by respondent No.3 with the learned tribunal and the learned tribunal is directed to invest 80% of the said amount on long term fixed deposit in the name of appellants No.2 to 5 equally under the guardianship of appellant No.7 in the nearest Nationalized Bank, in the area where the appellant No.7 is residing, with the condition that the Bank will not permit any loan or advance. Interest on the said amount shall be credited on monthly basis in S.B. Account of appellant No.7, which shall be opened by the appellant No.7 from where appellant No.7 can withdraw the amount as per needs of appellants No.2 to 5. However, on an application by the appellant No.7, this condition could be modified by the learned tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellant No.7. 13. So far as MA No.290/2006 which is arising out of claim case No.50/2002 wherein the deceased is Kaushalyabai whose dependency has been assessed @ Rs.700/- per month and multiplier of 17 has been applied and Rs.2,000/- has been awarded towards funeral expenses. Thus, total amount awarded is Rs.1,44,800/- which is on lower side. The income ought to have been assessed @ Rs.2,000/- per month after deducting 1/3rd amount and also after applying the multiplier of 17, the appellants are entitled for the following amount :- Rs. 2,72,000/- Towards loss of dependency Rs. 5,000/- Towards funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Towards loss of estate Rs. The income ought to have been assessed @ Rs.2,000/- per month after deducting 1/3rd amount and also after applying the multiplier of 17, the appellants are entitled for the following amount :- Rs. 2,72,000/- Towards loss of dependency Rs. 5,000/- Towards funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Towards loss of estate Rs. 25,000/- Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 3,07,000/- Total 14. In view of this, appeal (MA No.290/2006) filed by the appellants is allowed and appellants are entitled for total a sum of Rs.3,07,000/- instead of Rs.1,72,000/-. The enhanced amount is Rs.1,35,000/-. It is made clear that upon depositing the awarded amount by respondent No.3, 80% amount shall be deposited in the name of appellants No.2 to 5 equally under the guardianship of appellant No.7 who is grand-mother of appellants No.1 to 5 in the nearest Nationalized Bank, in the area where the appellant No.7 is residing, with the condition that the Bank will not permit any loan or advance. Interest on the said amount shall be credited on monthly basis in S.B. Account of appellant No.7, which shall be opened by the appellant No.7 from where appellant No.7 can withdraw the amount as per needs of appellants No.2 to 5. However, on an application by the appellant No.7, this condition can be modified by the learned tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellant No.7. 15. With the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed of. A copy of this Order be kept in the record of all the connected cases. C.C. as per rules.