JUDGMENT : R.M. CHHAYA, J. 1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 1st August, 1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Panchmahals District at Godhra (the Tribunal) in M.A.C.P. No. 246 of 1991 wherein the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,70,000/ - holding original opponent No. 2-respondent No. 2 herein, the owner of the truck, liable to the extent of 60% i.e. to the tune of Rs. 1,59,300/- and ordered original opponent No. 2 to pay the same, as the Insurance Company of the truck was not joined as party to the proceedings and holding original opponent Nos. 1 and 3, the owner of the jeep car and the Insurance Company of the jeep car respectively, liable to the tune of 40% i.e. an amount of Rs. 1,10,700/- alongwith interest @ 12% from the date of the application till realization. 2. The facts arising out of the present appeal are that on 12th November, 1990, son of original claimant Nos. 1 and 2 and husband of original claimant No. 3 named Manharbhai was travelling in a jeep car bearing registration No. GAM-8181 from Dahod to Jhalod. It reveals from the record that while the jeep car was on Limbdi road, near the river bridge, the truck belonging to original opponent No. 2, bearing registration No. GRY-3954 was coming from Limbdi. It further reveals that the truck was being driven by the driver of the truck on wrong side of the road, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the jeep car. Due to the aforesaid accident, Manharbhai received serious injuries on the stomach and was immediately taken to Dahod Cottage Hospital for treatment. The record further reveals that after treatment for 7 days at the hospital, Manharbhai came to be discharged and was shifted to his residence in an ambulance. However, on the same day, due to pain in the stomach, Manharbhai had to be shifted to the clinic of Dr. Chauhan at Jhalod, from where he was shifted to SSG Hospital, Vadodara and then had to be shifted to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad for further treatment. The record reveals that Manharbhai had to undergo surgery and ultimately he succumbed to the injuries on 30th December, 1990 at Ahmedabad. 3. The original claimants being father, mother and widow of deceased-Manharbhai filed the present claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming Rs. The record reveals that Manharbhai had to undergo surgery and ultimately he succumbed to the injuries on 30th December, 1990 at Ahmedabad. 3. The original claimants being father, mother and widow of deceased-Manharbhai filed the present claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation, which was thereafter enhanced to Rs. 15,00,000/-. The original claimants as well as the Insurance Company-original opponent No. 3, appeared before the Tribunal and adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that drivers of both the vehicles viz. the truck and the jeep involved in the accident, are composite negligent in the ratio of 60:40. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the education qualification of the deceased-Manharbhai, who was about 20 years on the date of the accident and who had passed 12th Std. examination and was inspiring admission in medical course, came to the conclusion that monthly earning of the deceased-Manharbhai would be Rs. 700/- and considering his prospective income as Rs. 1,500/- p.m., after deducting 1/3rd amount from his income, fixed his monthly income at Rs. 1,000/- i.e. Rs. 12,000/- p.a. Considering the age of deceased-Manharbhai the Tribunal applied multiplier of 17 and came to the conclusion that the future loss of income would come to Rs. 12,04,000/-. The Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 3,000/- under the head of transportation charges, Rs. 20,000/- under the head of mental pain, shock and sufferings and Rs. 15,000/- towards consortium, Rs. 10,000/- under the head of loss of expectation of life, Rs. 10,000/- towards the expenses incurred on medicines and Rs. 8,000/- under the head of attendant charges. Thus, the Tribunal was pleased to pass an award of Rs. 2,70,000/- as total compensation, alongwith interest 12% from the date of the application till realisation to the original claimants. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellants-the original claimants have preferred the present appeal. 4. Heard Mr. R.N. Shah, learned Counsel for the appellants-original claimants and Mr. Sunil Parikh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, owner of the jeep and owner of the truck respectively. We have perused the record and proceedings of the case as well as the relevant documents supplied by both sides. At the outset it may be noted that Mr. Sunil Parikh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, owner of the jeep and owner of the truck respectively. We have perused the record and proceedings of the case as well as the relevant documents supplied by both sides. At the outset it may be noted that Mr. Parikh, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, submitted that during pendency of the appeal before this Court, respondent No. 3-Insurance Company has endorsed the policy of the impeding truck bearing registration No. GRY-3954 and placed on record communication dated 5th August, 2011 alongwith cover note No. 32978 dated 24th September, 1990, covering insurance of the impeding truck and also the policy of the said truck. The said communication alongwith the cover note and the policy are taken on record. 5. On bare reading of the said policy, it clearly indicates that respondent No. 3-original opponent No. 3 stands insurer for the impeding truck belonging to original opponent No. 2-respondent No. 2 herein. It is also worthwhile to note that in fact cover note No. 32978 dated 24th September, 1990, which is placed on record, is also forming part of the original record and proceedings (at the list Ext. 33), which has been recorded at Ext. 33/1. Mr. Shah, learned Counsel submitted that it is clear from the above documents that the finding of the Tribunal that the claimants may recover 60% of the awarded claim from the original opponent No. 2-the owner of the truck, as the Insurance Company of the truck was not made party to the original claim petition, is an apparent error. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned award needs to be modified. Mr. Parikh, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, has not been able to point out anything in regard to the above contention. No other contentions are raised on behalf of the appellants. 6. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned award needs to be modified. Mr. Parikh, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, has not been able to point out anything in regard to the above contention. No other contentions are raised on behalf of the appellants. 6. On considering the cover note as well as the insurance policy produced by respondent No. 3, it clearly transpires that the truck involved in the present accident was insured by respondent No. 3 and, therefore, the Tribunal is not right in coming to the conclusion that as the Insurance Company of the truck was not joined as a party separately, the amount of claim being 60% of the total compensation awarded would be payable by the owner of the truck i.e. original opponent No. 2. As noted hereinabove, the cover note, which is produced on record before this Court, was very much on record before the Tribunal and, therefore, the said finding arrived at by the Tribunal is erroneous. 7. In view of the foregoing, we, therefore, hold that the appellants-original claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 2,70,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of application till realisation from all the original opponents-respondents herein, jointly and severally. Taking into consideration the fact that the claim petition is of 1991 the respondents are directed to deposit the total amount of claim, as aforesaid, within a period of 04 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. 8. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is partly allowed as aforesaid. Award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Record and proceedings be sent to the Tribunal forthwith. Appeal partly allowed.