JUDGMENT This order shall also govern disposal of MA Nos. 3510/2009, 3514/2009 & 759/2010 as all the appeals arising out of one accident and all parties are also one and the same except claim cases are different. 1. In MA No. 3110/2009, award is dated 26.08.2009 passed by 3rd Additional MACT Indore in claim case No. 82/2007 whereby claim petition filed by the appellant was allowed and payment of compensation of Rs. 2,25,000 was awarded on account of death of Moin Khan and respondents No. 1 and 2 were held liable for payment of compensation. Cross appeal has been filed by the respondent No. 1, owner of the offending vehicle which is numbered as MA No. 3514/2009. 2. MA No. 759/2009 is against award dated 26/08/2009 passed by 3rd Additional MACT, Indore in Claim Case No. 81/2007 wherein deceased is Jitendra and an amount awarded to the claimants is Rs. 73,00.00 for which respondents No. 1 and 2 have been held liable for payment of compensation. MA No. 759/2010 is filed by the appellant for enhancement of the amount of compensation, whereas cross appeals which are numbered as MA No. 3510/ 2009, MA No. 3508/2009 s filed by respondent No. 1 against award dated 261 08/2009 passed by 3rd MACT, Indore in Claim Case No. 83/2007 wherein deceased is Praveen aged 28 years and the amount awarded is Rs. 1,72,000.00. Thus two appeals are by the claimants for enhancement while three appeals are by the respondent No. 1 owner of the matador bearing registration No. MP/09-KA/2850. In MA No. 3508/2009 claimants are legal representatives of deceased Praveen and have filed cross - objection. 3. Short facts of the case are that on 17.09.2005 deceased Jitendra was going in a Maruti Van bearing registration No. UP/78-AL/5109 along with his friends Praveen Paliwal and Narayan Patidar. The car was being driven by Mohd. Moin Khan. It was alleged that when the Van in which the deceased persons were travelling reached to Dewas Road, at that time truck bearing registration No. Madhya Pradesh/09-KA2850 which was being driven by respondent No. 2 and owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3, was parked at the middle of the road. It was alleged that car in which deceased persons were travelling dashed with the truck make Tata 407 from the back side, with the result, Jitendra sustained grievous injuries while driver Mohd. It was alleged that car in which deceased persons were travelling dashed with the truck make Tata 407 from the back side, with the result, Jitendra sustained grievous injuries while driver Mohd. Moin Khan, Praveen Paliwal and Ramnarayan died on the spot. It was alleged that offending car was owned by respondent No. 4 and insured with respondent No. 5. The claim petitions were filed in which owner and Insurance Company of the car and the vehicle Tata 407 were made a party. Claims petitions were contested by the respondents wherein liability was avoided on various grounds. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, learned tribunal allowed claim petitions and awarded compensation and held the respondents No. 1 and 2 owner and driver of "Tata 407" liable for payment of compensation exonerating other respondents against which the aforesaid appeals have been filed. 4. In M.A. No 310/2005 wherein deceased is Mohd. Moin Khan, driver, learned tribunal has awarded sum of Rs. 2,26,000.00 break of which is as under: - Rs. 2,10,000.00 towards loss of dependency. Rs. 10,000.00 towards other heads 5. Mr. Atul Jaiswal, Learned counsel for the appellant submit that the income of the deceased was assessed @ of Rs. 3000.00 per month and half of the amount has been deducted towards personal expenses and multiplier of 12 has been applied for calculating the loss of dependency. It is submitted that income of the deceased assessed by the learned tribunal, is on lower side and the deduction of half of the amount towards personal expenses is also on higher side because there were two dependents of the deceased. It is submitted that the amount awarded on other heads also on lower side. 6. In M.A. No. 759/2010, appellants are legal representatives of deceased Jitendra. Jitendra himself filed the claim petition before the learned tribunal for compensation on account of injuries sustained by him. During pendency of the claim petitions, Jitendra died, therefore, it was prayed that compensation be awarded on account of death. Learned tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 73,000.00 on account of medical expenses as the medical bills, which were filed by the deceased Jitendra were of Rs. 72,989.00. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased Jitendra was 18 years of age at the time of accident, who sustained multiple fracture. Since 17/09/ 2005 injured Jitendra was under treatment, unfortunately passed away on 29/09/2006. 73,000.00 on account of medical expenses as the medical bills, which were filed by the deceased Jitendra were of Rs. 72,989.00. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased Jitendra was 18 years of age at the time of accident, who sustained multiple fracture. Since 17/09/ 2005 injured Jitendra was under treatment, unfortunately passed away on 29/09/2006. It is submitted that since due to injuries sustained by deceased Jitendra, learned tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 73,000,00 towards medical expenses, treating the case as injury case, therefore, it is prayed that the amount of compensation be awarded treating the case of deceased as a death case. Cross appeal filed by respondent No. 1 is numbered as M.A. No. 3510/2009. 7. Another appeal which has been filed by respondents No. 1 is numbered as M.A. No. 3508/2009 wherein deceased is Praveen Paliwal, wherein the amount awarded by the learned tribunal is Rs. 1,72,000.00, break up of which is as under: - Rs. 1,62,000.00 towards loss of dependency. Rs. 5,000.00 towards funeral expenses. Rs. 5,000.00 towards loss of estate 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that deceased Praveen was unmarried man aged about 28 years. Learned counsel submits that the Learned tribunal assessed the income of the deceased @ of Rs. 3,000.00 per month which is on lower side, deduction of half of the amount of the compensation is also on lower side and application of multiplier of 9 is on lower side. It is submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal is grossly inadequate. In all the appeals filed by the claimants and the cross - objections, learned counsel submits that the learned tribunal committed error in exonerating respondents No. 3 to 5. It is submitted that in appeal filed by legal representatives of deceased Mohd. Moin Khan, it was alleged that, deceased was the driver of the offending car. In claim petition filed u/s 163-A and 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is submitted that since Mohd. Moin Khan was the driver, therefore, so far as his claim against respondents No. 4 and 5 are concerned, no negligence is required to be proved. Moin Khan, it was alleged that, deceased was the driver of the offending car. In claim petition filed u/s 163-A and 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is submitted that since Mohd. Moin Khan was the driver, therefore, so far as his claim against respondents No. 4 and 5 are concerned, no negligence is required to be proved. So far as the appellants in MA No. 759/2010 wherein deceased-is Jitendra and the cross- objection in M.A. No. 3505/2009 is filed by legal representatives of deceased Praveen are concerned, learned counsel submits that it was a case of composite negligence as the driver of "Tata 407" was negligent in parking the vehicle on the middle of the road and the driver of the car Mohd. Moin Khan dashed the stationery vehicle. It is submitted that since Mohd. Moin Khan and respondent No. 2 were joint tort feasors therefore, learned tribunal committed error in exonerating respondents No. 4 and 5 owner and Insurance Company of the Car. Learned counsel further submitted learned tribunal also committed error in exonerating respondent No. 3 on the ground that respondent No. 2 was not possessing valid driving licence. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 further submits that since one Ramnarayan was also travelling in the offending vehicle, therefore, legal representatives of Ram Narayan also filed claim petition in the Court of 2nd MACT Khandwa which was numbered as claim case No. 16/ 2007 and the claim petitions was allowed vide award dated 5.7.2007 by awarding compensation of Rs. 5,51,000.00. It is submitted that appeal was also filed by the legal representatives of Ramnarayan, in the High Court Judicature at Jabalpur numbered as MA No. 4318/2007 and was settled in compromise in Lok Adalat vide order dated 15.5.2010 whereby the amount was further enhanced by Rs. 2,00,000.00. It is submitted that claim was settled by respondent No. 3. It is submitted that respondent No. 3 settled the claim of deceased Ramnarayan in compromise and also satisfied the award passed by the learned tribunal for which no appeal was filed, therefore, learned tribunal committed error in exonerating respondent No. 3. It is submitted that in view of order passed in M.A. No. 4318/2007 respondent No. 3 has no right to oppose appeal before this Court. It is submitted that in view of order passed in M.A. No. 4318/2007 respondent No. 3 has no right to oppose appeal before this Court. It is submitted that appeal be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced and the finding whereby respondents No. 3 to 5 were exonerated be set aside. In addition to it, learned counsel submits that it has come in evidence that offending vehicle Tata 407 was standing at the middle of the road as it was having mechanical breakdown. Therefore, there was no fundamental breach of terms of policy on the part of the respondent. 10. Mr. S. V. Dandvate, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that respondent No. 2 was not possessing any valid driving licence. It is submitted that the vehicle which was being driven was the transport vehicle, while respondent No. 2 was possessing licence of LMV It is submitted that finding recorded by the learned tribunal whereby respondent No. 3 was exonerated, is based on due appreciation of evidence which requires no interference. So far as the amount of award is concerned, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal is just and proper. So far as claim filed by legal representatives of Ramnarayan is concerned, learned counsel submits that since respondent No. 3 could not have adduced the evidence before the learned tribunal at Khandwa, therefore, award was passed against respondent No. 3 and in the circumstances of the case, liability was accepted in part before the High Court at Jabalpur. It is submitted that since the evidence was not adduced by respondent No. 3 in claim case therefore, the liability was accepted by respondent No. 3 in Lok Adalat. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal filed by the appellant and also claimants be dismissed. 11. Mr. Sunil Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 submits that since the fault was on the part of the respondent No. 2, therefore, learned tribunal has rightly exonerated respondents No. 4 and 5. It is submitted that in all the claim petitions, except claim petition filed by Mohd, Moin Khan, allegations in the clam petitions are to the effect that accident occurred because of negligence on the part of respondent No. 2, who parked the vehicle at the middle of the road without any signals. It is submitted that in all the claim petitions, except claim petition filed by Mohd, Moin Khan, allegations in the clam petitions are to the effect that accident occurred because of negligence on the part of respondent No. 2, who parked the vehicle at the middle of the road without any signals. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, learned counsel submits that the amount awarded by the learned tribunal is just and proper. 12. So far as appeal filed by legal representatives of Jitendra numbered as MA No. 759/2010 of which cross appeal numbered as MA No. 3510/2009 is concerned, learned counsel submits that since there is nothing on record to demonstrate that Jitendra died because of accident as the death is after one year, therefore, legal representatives of the deceased Jitendra were entitled only for pecuniary losses. In the circumstances of the case, learned tribunal has rightly awarded the amount spent by the deceased on his treatment. 13. MA No. 3508/2009 filed by the respondent No. 1 in which cross objection has been filed by legal representatives of deceased Praveen, it is submitted that cross - objection are barred by time, therefore, they cannot be entertained. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, all the appeals filed by the appellants and respondents No. 1 be dismissed. 14. From perusal of record, it appears that at the time of accident offending car was being driven by Mohd. Moin Khan and the offending truck was parked at the middle of the road, claim petition filed by Mohd. Moin Khan is u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act where, no negligence of the driver is required to be proved. Since offending car is insured with respondent No. 5 therefore, there was no justification on the part of the learned tribunal in exonerating respondents No. 4 and 5. So far as the amount of compensation payable to the appellant in appeal No. 3110/2009 is concerned, it appears that in the year 2005 learned tribunal has rightly assessed income of the deceased as Rs. 3000.00 per month since there was only two dependents and were in the age group of 45-50 years, therefore, learned tribunal committed no error in deducting half of the amount towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 2. However, it appears that a case of margina.1 enhancement is made out. 3000.00 per month since there was only two dependents and were in the age group of 45-50 years, therefore, learned tribunal committed no error in deducting half of the amount towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 2. However, it appears that a case of margina.1 enhancement is made out. Appellants shall be further entitled for a sum of Rs. 25,000.00 which shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. For which respondents No. 4 and 5 shall also be liable jointly and severally. 15. So far as M.A. No. 759/2010 for which cross appeal is MA No. 3510/ 2009 in which deceased is Jitendra who sustained injuries in a motor accident, which took place on 17.09.2005 and died on 29.09.2006 is concerned, learned tribunal awarded Rs. 73,000.00 for his treatment, Jitendra was hospitalized on 17.09.2005 and was discharged on 13.10.2005. Thereafter, he was hospitalized to Arbindo Hospital and died in the hospital, deceased was young man of 19 years. The matter got investigated by the Insurance Company/ respondent No. 3. There is nothing on record to show that what was the reason for the death of Jitendra. Therefore, it is presumed that the cause of death was the accident. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned tribunal committed error in treating the case as a claim case for injury which ought to have treated as case of death. In the claim case itself it is alleged that deceased Jitendra was earning Rs. 2000.00 per month and was working with respondent No. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case after deducting half of the amount and after applying multiplier of 15, appellants are entitled for the following amount: - Rs. 1,80,000.00 towards loss of dependency Rs. 5,000.00 towards funeral expenses. Rs. 10,000.00 towards love and affection. Rs 5,000.00 towards loss of estate Rs. 75,000.00 towards medical expenses Rs. 10,000.00 towards transport expenses Rs. 10,000.00 towards expenses on attenders Rs. 10,000.00 towards special diet. Rs. 3,05,000.00 total 16. Thus, in MA No. 759/2010 appellants legal representatives of the deceased are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 3,05,000.00 instead of Rs. 73,000.00. enhancement of Rs. 2,32,000.00 shall carry interest @ 8% p.a.' From the date of application. 17. 10,000.00 towards transport expenses Rs. 10,000.00 towards expenses on attenders Rs. 10,000.00 towards special diet. Rs. 3,05,000.00 total 16. Thus, in MA No. 759/2010 appellants legal representatives of the deceased are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 3,05,000.00 instead of Rs. 73,000.00. enhancement of Rs. 2,32,000.00 shall carry interest @ 8% p.a.' From the date of application. 17. So far as cross objection filed by the legal representatives of deceased Praveen in MA No. 3508/2005 is concerned, it cannot be rejected on the ground that it was barred by time as the appeal has yet to be admitted for. final hearing. Amount awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased Praveen is Rs. 1,72,000.00 breakup of which is as under: - Rs. 1,32,000.00 towards loss of dependency. Rs. 5,000.00 towards funeral expenses. Rs. 5,000.00 towards love and affection. 18. Deceased Praveen was 28 years of age at the time of accident and was married. Learned tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000 and after deducting half of the amount, applied multiplier of 9. It appears that the amount awarded by learned tribunal is on lower, side and deserves to be enhanced marginally. Legal representatives of the deceased Praveen shall also entitled for a further sum of Rs. 25,000.00 19. So far as liability of other respondents in MA No. 759/2010 for which cross appeal is MA No. 3510/2009 is concerned and MA No. 35085/20009 is concerned in the claim petition it was alleged that the accident occurred because of negligence of respondent No. 2 who parked the vehicle Tata 407 at the middle of the road. From perusal of the record it appears that criminal-case was registered against respondent No. 2 and also against Mohd. Moin Khan who was the driver of car which prima facie shows that drivers of both the vehicles were negligent. Otherwise also so far as claimants are concerned, it was a case of composite negligence as they were passenger. In the claim petition filed by legal representatives of deceased Ramnarayan also claim was settled by respondent No. 3 and no appeal was filed. In the appeal filed by the claimants again claim was settled in Lok Adalat. In the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view learned tribunal committed error in exonerating respondent No. 3 on the ground that respondent No. 2 was not possessing transport licence. In the appeal filed by the claimants again claim was settled in Lok Adalat. In the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view learned tribunal committed error in exonerating respondent No. 3 on the ground that respondent No. 2 was not possessing transport licence. Since at the time of accident, offending vehicle was parked in the middle of the road, therefore, it cannot be said that there is fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy of the vehicle. In the facts and circumstances of the case respondents No. 1 to 3 and respondents No. 4 to 5 are liable to settle the claim of appellants who are legal representatives of deceased Praveen and Jitendra jointly and severally meaning thereby respondents 1 to 3, and respondent No. 4 to 5 shall pay awarded amount fifty fifty. The awarded amount shall carry interest @ of 8% from the date of accident. 80% of the said amount be deposited in a on long term fixed deposit in the name of the appellant in the nearest Nationalized Bank, in the area where the appellant is residing, with the condition that the bank who will not permit any loan or advance. Interest on the said amount shall be credited on monthly basis in SB. Account of appellant, which shall be opened by the appellant from where appellant can withdraw the amount as per his needs. 20. Copy of the order be placed in the aforesaid MA. No. 3110/2009, 3510/2009, 3514/2009 & 759/2010.