JUDGMENT 1. 1. Since all these misc. appeals relate to common award dated 9-8-1996 passed in claim Petitions No. 225/1990, 232/1990, 233/1990, 234/1990, 235/1990, 251/1990, 257/1990 and 3/1911 by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Tonk, (in short the MACT) they are being disposed by this common judgment. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. The facts in brief are that on 20-9-1990 at about 8.00 a.m. jeep No. RRR 4211 was going for Bhilwara when it reached Mendwas it dashed against the Truck No. RSR 2577. This accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep with excessive speed by its driver i.e. Akbar Hussain, who is respondent No. 1 and due to sudden stopping of the truck in rash and negligent manner by its driver respondent No. 4. In the accident Dilip Bhargava, Moti, Samunder Singh, Jethanand, Prem Chand, Smt. Kamla and Noor Mohammed died and Sahjade Miyan sustained serious injuries. Sahajade Miyan and legal representatives of Moti, Samundra Singh, Jethanand, Prem Chand, Smt. Kamla and Noor Mohammed filed separate claim petitions, which were consolidated and the same were decided by the common award dated 9-8-1996 of the MACT. 4. In the claim petitions filed by the claimants, the respondents 1 and 2 filed written statement. It was stated that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck driver and the owner and driver and insurance company of the truck were liable for compensation. The respondent No. 3 United India Insurance Company in its written statement stated that the jeep was insured with them as a private vehicle and only 6 persons were to be travel in the vehicle whereas it was used for carrying 10 passengers and it was stated that it was only liable to pay compensation in the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- and since it was a case of breach of policy hence no liability can be fastened on the insurance company. 5. 1,50,000/- and since it was a case of breach of policy hence no liability can be fastened on the insurance company. 5. Respondents 4 and 5 in their written statement stated that at the time of accident the truck was going from Delhi to Tonk for village Dhua Kallan and when it reached near Mendwas about half kilometer the truck driver after parking it went for urination and the jeep came back side of the truck and hit it on account of which accident occurred. Since the truck was stationery and hence no liability can be fastened on the insurance company and the owner and driver of the truck. 6. The respondent No. 6 who was driver of the truck stated that it was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep on account of which the accident took place and the respondents 4 and 5 are not responsible for payment of compensation. It was also stated that even if on account of any mistake of the truck, they are only responsible for contributory negligence. The MACT framed five issues. 7. The parties produced evidence. After considering the claim petitions, written statements and the evidence produced by the parties, the MACT allowed the claim petitions and directed the Oriental Insurance Company, owner of the jeep and driver, to pay the compensation in the ratio of 75% and 25% for the contributory negligence to the claimants. The United India Insurance Company was absolved from its liablity to pay compensation on account of breach of policy by the driver and owner of the jeep. Against the common award dated 9-8-1996, the Oriental Insurance Company filed Appeal Nos. 133, 241 to 246 of 1997. The legal representatives of the deceased who died in the accident filed Appeal Nos. , 39, 46, 62, 120, 121, 122 and 540 of 1997 for enhancement of the compensation. It may be mentioned that the Oriental Insurance Co. has not filed any appeal against the award dated 9-8-1996 passed in Claim Case No. 3/1991. Similarly in claim case No. 251/1990, the claimants have not filed any appeal for enhancement of the compensation. It may also be mentioned that on account of breach of policy the insurance company of the Jeep i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has been absolved from its liability. The claimants filed common written arguments in support of their appeals. Similarly in claim case No. 251/1990, the claimants have not filed any appeal for enhancement of the compensation. It may also be mentioned that on account of breach of policy the insurance company of the Jeep i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has been absolved from its liability. The claimants filed common written arguments in support of their appeals. Oriental Insurance Company also filed written arguments in support of its appeals for quashing the common award granting compensation to the claimants. 8. The learned counsel for the claimant appellants has contended that the appeals filed by the Oriental Insurance Company are not maintainable as the Insurance Company has not taken any defence as provided under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act in the absence of which the Insurance Company is not entitled to raise the defence other than provided in Section 149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act. It is argued that in the absence of an application by the Insurance Company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and permission for the same, the Insurance Company cannot raise the point of quantum and negligence. This point has been decided by the Apex Court in various judgments as well as by this Hon ble Court and other High Courts. Some of the judgments are (i) British India v. Capt. Itbar Singh ( AIR 1959 SC 1331 ) (ii) Shankarayya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 1998 ACJ 513 : ( AIR 1998 SC 2968 ). (iii) Narendra Kumar v. Yarenissa 1998 ACJ 244. (iv) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi III (2002) ACC 292. 9. The learned counsel for the claimant appellants also placed reliance on APSRTC v. K. Hemalatha MACD 2008 (SC) 302 : ( AIR 2008 SC 2851 ) ; T.O. Anthony v. Karvarmam, MACD 2008 (SC) 246 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kastoori Devi, ( 1988 ACJ 8 ) ; Sarlab Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation MACD 2009 (SC) 353. 10. The learned counsel for the claimant appellants has further submitted that the Oriental Insurance Company has challenged the finding regarding negligence on the ground that the driver of the jeep was not examined. This submission by the Insurance Company is incorrect. In fact Akbar Hussain driver was examined as witness. The Insurance Company has also raised a point that the witnesses had not said anything about the negligence of the truck driver. This submission by the Insurance Company is incorrect. In fact Akbar Hussain driver was examined as witness. The Insurance Company has also raised a point that the witnesses had not said anything about the negligence of the truck driver. This contention is also incorrect. In fact three eye witnesses i.e. Shahjade Miyan, Krishna Gopal and Sua Lal has categorically stated in their statements that the truck No. RSR 2577 was going ahead of Jeep No. RRR 4211. The truck driver stopped the truck suddenly in the middle of the road without any indication because of which the jeep dashed against it. It was a case of negligence on the part of both the drivers. The MACT in view of the judgment in DNJ (Raj) 1994 page 619 and 1987 ACJ page 113 (Raj)has arrived at a conclusion that there was 75 per cent negligence for the truck driver and 25 per cent negligence was of the jeep driver. In regard to point raised by the Insurance Company that there was no pleadings with regard to the negligence of the truck driver in the claim petition, the learned counsel argued that in the claim petition only brief facts of the case are written and it is not necessary that specific pleadings with regard to negligence must be mentioned as strict rules of pleadings and evidence are not applicable in the cases of Motor Accident Claims. This view has been taken by the Apex Court in the judgment of 1977 ACJ 118. So far as FIR and charge-sheet against the jeep driver is concerned, it is settled law that the conclusion of the investigating officer or finding by the criminal Court is not binding on the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal has to decide the cases as per the evidence lead before it. In regard to liability of the Insurance Company of the jeep the learned counsel placed reliance on 1998 (1) TAC 187 . It was argued that the Insurance Company should not have been exonerated from the liability of paying compensation to the claimants. The Insurance Company of the jeep is statutorily liable to pay compensation to the claimants and in case of breach of policy condition it can recover that amount from the owner of the jeep. It was argued that the Insurance Company should not have been exonerated from the liability of paying compensation to the claimants. The Insurance Company of the jeep is statutorily liable to pay compensation to the claimants and in case of breach of policy condition it can recover that amount from the owner of the jeep. In support of this argument the learned counsel placed reliance on the following rulings : (i) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla, 2001 ACJ 843 : ( AIR 2001 SC 1419 ) . (ii) (I) 2003 ACC 611. (iii) 2001 (2) WLC 440 : (2001 AIHC 1683 (Raj) New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Bhanwari Devi . (iv) Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Shesh Reddy 1996 ACJ 1044 : ( AIR 1996 SC 2627 ). 11. In regard to composite negligence the learned counsel placed reliance on 1988 ACJ 8 (Raj), 1988 ACT page 342 (Raj), WLC 1992 (1) 250 and WLC 1992 (2) page 344 (Raj). 12. The learned counsel for the appellant Oriental Insurance Company Mr. Risipal Agarwal, has contended that while deciding the issue relating to the negligence the MACT placed reliance over the testimony of Sahajade Miyan, who has stated that the truck driver also suddenly applied the brakes and as such both the drivers were negligent. This piece of evidence of Shahjade Miyan is beyond his pleading since he has no where stated in his claim petition that the driver of the truck suddenly applied the brakes and rather in the claim petition he has pleaded that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the jeep driver. Thus the evidence adduced beyond the pleadings cannot be taken into considerations particularly when Sujan Singh, IO who has filed the charge-sheet has been examined by the claimants themselves as AW 2 in Claim case No. 232/90 and who has categorically stated on oath that there was no negligence of the truck driver. 13. The learned counsel has further contended that MACT observed that the FIR by the driver of jeep was not registered by the police. In this respect the learned counsel has contended that the FIR was lodged at 8.20 a.m. at PS Mehandwas i.e. within 20 minutes of the incident and as such the genuinity of contents of FIR cannot be questioned particularly when the IO has come in the witness box. 14. In this respect the learned counsel has contended that the FIR was lodged at 8.20 a.m. at PS Mehandwas i.e. within 20 minutes of the incident and as such the genuinity of contents of FIR cannot be questioned particularly when the IO has come in the witness box. 14. The defence of the owner of the jeep to the effect that the truck was in motion and the driver of the truck suddenly applied the brakes is cooked up story since in the FIR itself it has come that at the time of accident the truck was standing on the road side and it was not in motion. Alternatively the learned counsel has contended that if the Hon ble Court comes to the conclusion that the truck driver was also negligent to some extent then he cannot be held liable to the extent of 75% since the evidence adduced on record shows that the driver of the jeep was more negligent since the vehicle was over loaded. The learned counsel placing reliance on New India Assurance Co. v. Kheta Ram 2002 (5) WLC (Raj) 953 : ( AIR 2003 Rajasthan 90) has contended that in case of composite negligence there is no method to bifurcate or apportion the liability. The amount awarded must have been apportioned between both the tortfeasors to the extent of their respective negligence. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant Oriental Insurance Company further placed reliance on State of Karnataka v. Satish 2000 (1) TAC 408 (SC) , Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla, (2007) (3) TAC 11 (SC) : (2007 AIR SCW 3591) Raj Rani v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ( 2009 ACJ 2003 ) , Vijay Kumar Kulhar v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (2009 (3) TAC 1003 (SC) : (2009 AIR SCW 5425) and Renukadevi H. v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation ( 2008 ACJ 1188 ) : ( AIR 2008 SC 1967 ) . 16. Mr. Anant Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the United India Insurance Company Limited has contended that the learned MACT considered each and every thing while holding the truck driver negligent and rightly fixed the liability 75% and further contended that on account of breach of policy the Insurance Company was rightly absolved from its liability. 16. Mr. Anant Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the United India Insurance Company Limited has contended that the learned MACT considered each and every thing while holding the truck driver negligent and rightly fixed the liability 75% and further contended that on account of breach of policy the Insurance Company was rightly absolved from its liability. He placed reliance on 2006 (4) SCC 404 : ( AIR 2006 SC 1576 ) UIIC v. Tilak Singh , 2007 (5) SCC 42 OIC v. Meena Variyal , 2008 (7) SCC 428 : ( AIR 2008 SC 2729 ), OIC v. Sudha Karan and 2006 (4) SCC 250 : (AIR 2006 SC 3440) NIC v. Kusum Rai. 17. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival contentions and the award passed by the MACT and material on record. 18. Before proceeding further it would be necessary to have a look at the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the parties. 19. In A.P.S.R.T.C. v. K. Hemalatha ( AIR 2008 SC 2851 ) (supra) the Apex Court held that where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrong doers. The Apex Court fixed proportion 1:4. 20. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kastoori Devi (supra) the Division Bench of this Court held that there is no method or indicia to bifurcate or apportion the liability, both are liable jointly or severally. 21. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra) the Apex Court held that deduction for personal and living expenses of the deceased should be made from his income to arrive at the contribution to the dependents and further held that different multiplier can be affixed for each age group to avoid any inconsistency. 22. In State of Karnataka v. Satish (supra) , the Apex Court held in a matter related to sections 337, 338 and 304A, Indian Penal Code that in absence of any material on record presumption of rashness or negligence could be drawn by invoking the mixim res ipsa loquitur and it was held that high speed does not bespeak of either negligence or rashness by itself. 23. 23. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Prem Lata Shukla (2007 AIR SCW 3591) (supra) , the Apex Court held that proof of rashness and negligence on part of driver being sine qua non for maintaining an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Apex Court set aside the judgment of the High Court granting compensation holding that FIR having been not legally proved, driver of tempo trax was guilty of rash and negligent driving. 24. In Raj Rani v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) , the truck parked in middle of the road without parking lights on and car driver driving at normal speed of 40 kmph, owing to lights of another vehicle coming from opposite direction, sighted the truck only at last minute and could not avoid the accident resulting in his death. Uttarakhand High Court held that both drivers of the vehicles were equally negligent. The Apex Court in the case upheld the findings of the High Court. 25. In Vijay Kumar Kulhar v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (2009 AIR SCW 5425) the left side of truck collided with right side of bus. Conductor and driver of Bus deposed in one voice that Bus was going in a moderate speed. Truck came in a high speed and dashed violently to rear side of bus, a result of which Bus dashed against bridge and broke wall and was lying in a hanging position. The inspection reports of both vehicles made out clear case that truck was driven by appellant in a rash and negligent manner and came from behind and while attempting to overtake the bus dashed against it causing damage. The Apex Court held liable to the appellant Vijay Kumar Kilhar to pay amount of compensation. 26. In Renukadevi H. v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation ( AIR 2008 SC 1967 ) (supra) , Bus came at fast speed and hit a scooter from behind, scooter was trapped under wheel of bus and rider of scooter sustained serious injuries. High Court observed that spot mahazar clearly indicated that scooter hit rear wheel of bus indicating that injuries was also negligent to a great extent and held that both the bus driver and scooter rider were equally negligent. The Apex Court held the finding of the High Court not perverse or arbitrary in nature and thus upheld. 27. In United India Insurance Co. The Apex Court held the finding of the High Court not perverse or arbitrary in nature and thus upheld. 27. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Shimla v. Tilak Singh ( AIR 2006 SC 1576 ) (supra) , the Apex Court regarding risk of death or injury to gratuitous passenger carried in a private vehicle, if covered held that an insurance policy under Section 147 does not cover such a risk. 28. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal ( AIR 2008 SC 2729 ) (supra) , the Apex Court held that Section 149(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be used to enlarge the liability if it does not exist in terms of Section 147 of the Act. 29. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Sudhkaran K. V. (AIR 2006 SC 3440) (supra) , the Apex Court held that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation in respect of a pillion rider in terms of the statutory cover mandated by Section 147 when the accident has taken place owing to rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle carrying the pillion rider concerned. Such a pillion rider is not to be treated as a third party under Section 147. Such a pillion rider would be covered only in case additional cover is purchased under the contract of insurance. Legal obligation arising under Section 147 cannot be extended to an injury or death of the owner of the vehicle or a pillion rider travelling thereon. 30. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai (supra) , the Apex Court held that the commercial vehicle driven by a person not possessing appropriate license therefore meeting with an accident which resulting in death of a minor girl, the insurer could rightly set up the defence of breach of condition of the insurance contract. The Apex Court refused to interfere with the judgment of the High Court although it was erroneous. 31. Now I may consider the findings arrived at by the MACT and the arguments of both the parties on the basis of the rulings cited by the counsel for the parties, against which the claimants and the insurance company have filed the present appeals. 32. The issues framed by the MACT, reads as under : (Vernacular matter omitted......Ed.) 33. 31. Now I may consider the findings arrived at by the MACT and the arguments of both the parties on the basis of the rulings cited by the counsel for the parties, against which the claimants and the insurance company have filed the present appeals. 32. The issues framed by the MACT, reads as under : (Vernacular matter omitted......Ed.) 33. The MACT in relation to issue No. 1 in the findings recorded by it held as under : (Vernacular matter omitted......Ed.) 34. For coming to this finding, the MACT considered the statements of Shahjade Miyan Krishna Gopal and Sua Lal who were the eye-witness to the accident. I have gone through the statements of these witnesses. These witness were also travelling in the jeep and they stated that they paid the fare for travelling in the jeep and the accident took place on account of brake applied by the truck driver and the jeep driver also applied brake and it hit the back side of the truck. The MACT also considered the witnesses produced by the other parties and came to the conclusion that even if the truck was standing then also the truck and the jeep both were liable for compensation. This finding of the MACT cannot be said to be unjust. The finding of the MACT that in view of the judgment of the DLJ (Raj) 1994 Page 619 the truck standing on the metal road without any back light and if it is hit by jeep from the back side, both the truck and the jeep were liable for contributory negligence in the ratio of 75 : 25. This finding of the MACT cannot be said to be unjust. 35. The MACT while coming to this finding also observed as under : (Vernacular matter omitted......Ed.) 36. This finding of the MACT cannot be said to be unjust and in my opinion the issue No. 1 was rightly decided in favour of the claimants and against the non-claimants. The arguments raised by the Oriental Insurance Company in this respect is rejected. 37. Now I may come to the findings on issue No. 2 given by the MACT in the claim petitions.SBCMA 133/1997 & SBCMA 46/1997. 38. SBCMA No. 46/1997 has been filed by the claimants for the death of Dr. Dilip Bhargava. The MACT awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 4,62,840 for the death of Dr. 37. Now I may come to the findings on issue No. 2 given by the MACT in the claim petitions.SBCMA 133/1997 & SBCMA 46/1997. 38. SBCMA No. 46/1997 has been filed by the claimants for the death of Dr. Dilip Bhargava. The MACT awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 4,62,840 for the death of Dr. Dilip Bhargava. The MACT as per the judgments of U.P. State Road Corporation v. Trilok Chand and General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Sushma Thomas applied multiplier of 14 and on this basis awarded compensation. The MACT on the basis of salary slip held that the deceased was earning Rs. 3132 and looking to his prospects as his wife and father mother were earning fixed Rs. 1,000/- and in this manner after deducting ⅓rd the multiplier of 14 was used and in this manner a sum of Rs. 4,62,840/- was awarded and for loss of love and affection Rs. 15,000/- were awarded and for love and affection of children Rs. 2,000/- were awarded and total amount of Rs. 4,81,840/- was granted by the MACT. I have gone through the calculation based on the judgment of Apex Court in Sushma Thomas and I do not find any infirmity in the same and in this manner the appeal filed by the claimants deserves to be rejected. I have also gone through the arguments raised by the Oriental Insurance Company and the rulings cited by the counsel for the Insurance Company for quashing the common award. In my opinion the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is devoid of merit and the same deserves to be rejected.SBCMA 540/1997 & SBCMA 243/1997. 39. SBCMA 540/1997 has been filed by the claimants for the death of Samunder Singh. The Insurance Company filed appeal No. 243/1997 for quashing of the award. The MACT awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,33,944/- for the death of Sumunder Singh. The MACT as per the judgments of U.P. State Road Corporation v. Trilok Chand and General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Sushma Thomas applied multiplier of 14 and on this basis awarded compensation. The MACT on the basis that the deceased was labour and was earning Rs. 2500/- per month and at the time of accident he was 36 years of age, applied multiplier of 14. On the basis of earning the MACT determined the monthly income Rs. The MACT on the basis that the deceased was labour and was earning Rs. 2500/- per month and at the time of accident he was 36 years of age, applied multiplier of 14. On the basis of earning the MACT determined the monthly income Rs. 2,000/- out of which ⅓ was deducted for his expenditure and rest of the amount multiplied by 14 comes to Rs. 2,33,944/-, and for loss of love and affection Rs. 15,000/- were awarded and for love and affection of children Rs. 2,000/- were awarded in this manner total amount of Rs. 2,46,944/- was awarded by the MACT. I have gone through the calculation based on the judgment of Apex Court in Sushma Thomas and I do not find infirmity in the same and in this manner the appeal filed by the claimants deserves to be rejected. I have also gone through the arguments raised by the Oriental Insurance Company and the rulings cited by the counsel for the Insurance Company for quashing the common award. In my opinion the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is devoid of merit and the same deserves to be rejected.SBCMA 122/1997 & SBCMA 241/1997. 40. SBCMA No. 122/1997 has been filed by the claimants for the death of Smt. Kamla. The Insurance Company filed appeal No. 241/1997 for quashing of the award. The MACT awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 92,327/- for the death of Smt. Kamla. The MACT as per the judgments of U.P. State Road Corporation v. Trilok Chand and General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Sushma Thomas applied multiplier of 12 and on this basis awarded compensation. The MACT on the basis that the deceased was doing tailoring work by which she must have earned Rs. 1,000/- per month. The deceased was 35 years of age at the time of accident. On the basis of earning the MACT determined the monthly income Rs. 1,000/- out of which ⅓ was deducted for her expenditure and further 1/7 was deducted on account of death of her husband and on rest of the amount multiplied by 12 and for love and affection of children Rs. 2,000/- each were awarded in this manner total amount of Rs. 92,327/- was awarded by the MACT. 1,000/- out of which ⅓ was deducted for her expenditure and further 1/7 was deducted on account of death of her husband and on rest of the amount multiplied by 12 and for love and affection of children Rs. 2,000/- each were awarded in this manner total amount of Rs. 92,327/- was awarded by the MACT. I have gone through the calculation based on the judgment of Apex Court in Sushma Thomas and I do not find any infirmity in the same and in this manner the appeal filed by the claimants deserves to be rejected. I have also gone through the arguments raised by the Oriental Insurance Company and the rulings cited by the counsel for the Insurance Company for quashing the common award. In my opinion the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is devoid of merit and the same deserves to be rejected.SBCMA 121/1997 & SBCMA 244/1997. 41. SBCMA No. 121/1997 has been filed by the claimants for the death of Prem Chand. The Insurance Company filed appeal No. 244/1997 for quashing of the award. The MACT awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 4,47,308/- for the death of Prem Chand. The MACT as per the judgments of U.P. State Road Corporation v. Trilok Chand and General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Sushma Thomas applied multiplier of 12 and on this basis awarded compensation. The MACT on the basis that the deceased was Librarian in Education Department and was earning Rs. 2814/- per month. The deceased was 40 year of age at the time of accident. For future loss his income was further assessed at Rs. 2500/-, out of which ⅓ was deducted for his expenditure and it was determined to be Rs. 3543/-. Multiplier of 12 was applied and compensation of Rs. 5,10,192/- was determined. Since his wife also died further 1/7 was deducted and total amount determined to be Rs. 4,37,308/- and for love and affection of children Rs. 2,000/- each were awarded in this manner total amount of Rs. 4,47,380/- was awarded by the MACT. I have gone through the calculation based on the judgment of Apex Court in Sushma Thomas and I do not find any infirmity in the same and in this manner the appeal filed by the claimants deserves to be rejected. 2,000/- each were awarded in this manner total amount of Rs. 4,47,380/- was awarded by the MACT. I have gone through the calculation based on the judgment of Apex Court in Sushma Thomas and I do not find any infirmity in the same and in this manner the appeal filed by the claimants deserves to be rejected. I have also gone through the arguments raised by the Oriental Insurance Company and the rulings cited by the counsel for the Insurance Company for quashing the common award. In my opinion the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is devoid of merit and the same deserves to be rejected.SBCMA 39/1997 & SBCMA 245/1997. 42. SBCMA No. 39/1997 has been filed by the claimants for the death of Moti. The Insurance Company filed appeal No. 245/1997 for quashing of the award. The MACT awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 1,78,960/- for the death of Moti. The MACT as per the judgments of U.P. State Road Corporation v. Trilok Chand and General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Sushma Thomas applied multiplier of 10 and on this basis awarded compensation. The MACT determined monthly income on the basis that the deceased was Agriculturist and was earning Rs. 2000/- per month. The deceased was 47 years of age at the time of accident, out of which ⅓ was deducted for his self expenditure and after applying multiplier of 10 and for love and affection Rs. 15,000/- were determined and for love and affection of children Rs. 2,000/- each were awarded in this manner total amount of Rs. 1,78,960/- was awarded by the MACT. I have gone through the calculation based on the judgment of Apex Court in Sushma Thomas and I do not find any infirmity in the same and in this manner the appeal filed by the claimants deserves to be rejected. I have also gone through the arguments raised by the Oriential Insurance Company and the rulings cited by the counsel for the Insurance Company for quashing the common award. In my opinion the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is devoid of merit and the same deserves to be rejected.SBCMA 120/1997 & SBCMA 242/1997. 43. SBCMA No. 120/1997 has been filed by the claimants for the death of Jethanand. The Insurance Company filed appeal No. 242/1997 for quashing of the award. The MACT awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 43. SBCMA No. 120/1997 has been filed by the claimants for the death of Jethanand. The Insurance Company filed appeal No. 242/1997 for quashing of the award. The MACT awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,62,940/- for the death of Jethanand. The MACT as per the judgments of U.P. State Road Corporation v. Trilok Chand and General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Sushma Thomas applies multiplier of 15. and on this basis awarded compensation. The MACT on the basis that the deceased was doing Grocery work and was earning Rs. 2000/- per month. The deceased was 30 years at the time of accident, out of which ⅓ was deducted for his self expenditure and after applying multiplier of 15 and for love and affection Rs. 15,000/- were determined and for love and affection of children Rs. 2,000/- each were awarded in this manner total amount of Rs. 2,62,940/- was awarded by the MACT. I have gone through the calculation based on the judgment of Apex Court in Sushma Thomas and I do not find any infirmity in the same and in this manner the appeal filed by the claimants deserves to be rejected. On the other hand the appeal filed by the Insurance Company also devoid of merit and the same is also deserves to be rejected.SBCMA 246/1997. 44. The Insurance Company filed appeal No. 246/1997 for quashing of the award passed by the MACT for the death of Noor Mohammed. The MACT awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- for the death of Noor Mohammed. It was stated by the claimants before the MACT that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,000/- and he was aged about 26 years. The claimants could not produce the income proof and hence the MACT determined his income to be Rs. 1500/- per month and applied the multiplier of 15 after deducting ⅓ expenditure to be incurred by the deceased on himself and in this manner the MACT awarded one time compensation in the amount of Rs. 1,80,000/-. This amount cannot be said to be excessive. The claimants have not filed any appeal for enhancing the amount. I have also gone through the arguments raised by the Oriental Insurance Company and the rulings cited by the counsel for the Insurance Company for quashing the common award. 1,80,000/-. This amount cannot be said to be excessive. The claimants have not filed any appeal for enhancing the amount. I have also gone through the arguments raised by the Oriental Insurance Company and the rulings cited by the counsel for the Insurance Company for quashing the common award. In my opinion the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is devoid of merit and the same deserves to be rejected.SBCMA 62/1997. 45. The claimant Shajade Miyan filed appeal No. 62/97 for enhancing the compensation granted by the MACT. The MACT passed award of Rs. 7,000/- for the three injuries received by Shajade Miyan. I have looked into the injury report. No disability certificate was produced on account of which any amount is to be enhanced. The Oriental Insurance Company has also not filed any appeal against the grant of Rs. 7,000/- to him. The award of Rs. 7,000/- looking to his injuries cannot be said to be unjust. The appeal filed by him deserves to be rejected. 46. It is true that the passengers travelling in the jeep paid the fare. The owner of the jeep only paid Rs. 180 as premium. Thus it is clear that he has not paid any amount in relation to the passengers travelled in his jeep. On the basis of the judgments of the Apex Court quoted above, the United India Insurance Company was absolved from its liability. The MACT also held that the insurer of the Truck was liable for payment of 75% compensation and the driver and owner of the jeep were made liable to the compensation upto 25%. This finding of the MACT cannot be said to be unjust and improper on the basis of the judgments of the Apex Court mentioned above particularly the judgment of the Apex Court in APSRTC v. K. Hemalatha (supra) fixed proportion 1:4 for composite negligence. 47. The other issues decided by the MACT were not seriously opposed by the counsel for the claimants and the Insurance Company. The United Insurance Company has already stated in its written that the owner of the jeep violated the condition of the insurance policy and hence it is rightly absolved from its liability to pay compensation. 48. For the reasons and the findings mentioned above, Misc. Appeals Nos. 39/1997, 46/1997, 62/1997, 120/1997, 121/97, 122/97 and 540/1997 filed by the claimants and appeal Nos. 48. For the reasons and the findings mentioned above, Misc. Appeals Nos. 39/1997, 46/1997, 62/1997, 120/1997, 121/97, 122/97 and 540/1997 filed by the claimants and appeal Nos. 133/1997, 241/97, 242/1997, 243/1997, 244/1997, 245/1997 and 246/1997 filed by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. fail and are hereby rejected. The common award passed by the MACT in all the claim petitions stands confirmed. The stay applications also stand rejected. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.Appeals dismissed. *******