Judgment Bhaskar Bhattacharya, ACJ.—These two appeals were heard analogously as these were preferred against the selfsame award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 2. First Appeal No. 2856 of 1996 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is at the instance of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad, the owner of the alleged offending vehicle, and is directed against an award dated May 13, 1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main] Rajkot in M.A.C.P. No. 768 of 1992 thereby awarding compensation of Rs. 4,40,000/- in favour of the claimants with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment along with proportionate costs, making both the owner and the driver of the vehicle liable jointly and severally to pay the amount of compensation. 3. The other First Appeal being First Appeal No. 5010 of 1996 is at the instance of the claimants thereby praying for enhancement of the amount awarded by the Tribunal below. 4. It appears from the materials on record that there was a collision of a State Transport bus with a Hero Honda motorcycle on November 26, 1992 at about 10.30 AM on Veernagar - Atkot road near Peervadi resulting in the death of the driver of the motorcycle. The claim-application was filed by the widow, two sons and the parents of the deceased who was working as Agricultural Officer in the branch office of the Dena Bank at Kotda Pitha. According to the claimants, the deceased used to draw monthly salary of Rs. 7,000/- at the time of the accident and in the course of time, the salary of the deceased would have gradually increased to about Rs. 12,000/- a month at the time of his retirement. The victim was aged about 41 years and consequently, the claimants prayed for compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- with interest and costs from the opponents. 5. The said claim-application was contested by both the opponents, i.e. the owner and driver of the State Transport bus thereby alleging that there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the victim himself. The victim was aged about 41 years and consequently, the claimants prayed for compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- with interest and costs from the opponents. 5. The said claim-application was contested by both the opponents, i.e. the owner and driver of the State Transport bus thereby alleging that there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the victim himself. According to these opponents, the bus was going through the approved side (left) of the road with a very moderate speed and at the time of accident, the bus had just crossed a speed-breaker and as such, there was no scope of running of the same at a high speed. According to the opponents, the victim was coming from the opposite direction on his motorcycle at a high speed and was overtaking a truck, and while overtaking the said truck, the said motorcycle collided with the right hand front portion of the bus notwithstanding the fact that the driver of the bus had placed his bus to the extreme left side of the road to avoid the accident. According to the opponents, there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver but it was the victim who was solely responsible for the accident. 6. Apart from one of the claimants, an alleged eye-witness who had a shop in front of the place of the accident deposed in favour of the claimants while the bus driver who is the Opponent No. 2, two co-passengers of the bus who were eye-witnesses of the accident and one depot manager of the Transport Corporation who gave report on inspection after the accident, gave evidence controverting the allegations made on behalf of the claimants. 7. The learned Tribunal below, on consideration of the materials on record, came to the conclusion that although there was negligence on the part of the deceased victim in driving the motorcycle, the driver of the bus also could not evade his responsibility in not taking appropriate steps for avoiding the accident when the vehicle driven by the opponent No. 2 was a bigger one of the two. According to the Tribunal below, when two vehicles collide with each other, the vehicle bigger in size should carry higher responsibility. According to the Tribunal below, when two vehicles collide with each other, the vehicle bigger in size should carry higher responsibility. After arriving at such a conclusion, the Tribunal further held that in the present case, the negligence on the part of the bus-driver appeared to be negligible and it should be estimated as not more than 20% to 25% as compared to the 75% to 80% negligence attributable to the deceased. However, considering the size of the two vehicles and the fact that the charge-sheet had been filed against the driver of the bus, the Tribunal ultimately came to the conclusion that the bus-driver should be held negligent to the extent of 40% and the balance 60% should be attributable to the deceased. 8. As regards the amount of compensation, the Tribunal was of the view that the victim used to get monthly salary of Rs. 3540/- at the time of the accident and it was revised from November 1, 1992 and according to such revision, it was fixed at Rs. 7820/- from November 1, 1992. The Tribunal further took note of the fact that according to the witnesses examined in the present case, the victim would have got seven promotional posts before retirement. The Tribunal further held that the first promotion could have been obtained after a span of seven years and the next one after about five years of service on the first promotional post, and after taking into consideration the fact that the pay scale has been revised in 1992, the average salary of the deceased should be assessed at Rs. 10,000/- a month. According to the Tribunal, even if the deceased would spend about Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 4000/- for his personal expenses, the dependency could be assessed at Rs. 6000/- to Rs. 6500/- a month and thus the annual dependency loss would be Rs. 72,000/-. As the deceased was aged 41 years, according to the Tribunal, multiplier of 15 should be applied and on that basis, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that future loss of dependency would be Rs. 10,80,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for loss of expectation of life and amenities, and thus arriving at the aggregate figure of Rs. 11,00,000/-. However, having regard to the findings of the Tribunal that the victim himself was negligent to the extent of 60%, a sum of Rs. 10,80,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for loss of expectation of life and amenities, and thus arriving at the aggregate figure of Rs. 11,00,000/-. However, having regard to the findings of the Tribunal that the victim himself was negligent to the extent of 60%, a sum of Rs. 6,60,000/- came to be deducted from the above amount and consequently, the Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,40,000/-. 9. Mr. Munshaw, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, the owner of the offending bus, has strenuously contended before us that it has been established from the evidence on record that the victim was driving his motorcycle at the speed of 90 kms an hour for the purpose of attending the office by 10.30 AM. Mr. Munshaw submitted that it would appear from the panchnama exhibited in this case that at the time of the accident, the bus was on the extreme left side and even 3 to 4 ft. of the left portion of the bus was on the ‘kachha’ portion of the road on the extreme left side and the motorcycle had hit the right side of the bus. From the evidence on record, according to Mr. Munshaw, it was apparent that the victim, in the process of overtaking a truck, came on the right hand side after crossing the middle line of the road but could not succeed in overtaking the truck and in the process, hit with the right side of the bus. Mr. Munshaw submits that in such circumstance, there was no justification in holding that the driver of the bus was negligent to the extent of even 40%. Mr. Munshaw further contended that there is no law of the land that in case of an accident between two vehicles, the one bigger in size should be held to be more responsible even if the driver of the smaller size is found to be absolutely responsible for the accident. Mr. Munshaw, therefore, submitted that it was a fit case where the Tribunal should have held that the victim was solely responsible for the accident and no amount of compensation should be payable. Mr. Munshaw, therefore, prays for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 10. Ms. Mr. Munshaw, therefore, submitted that it was a fit case where the Tribunal should have held that the victim was solely responsible for the accident and no amount of compensation should be payable. Mr. Munshaw, therefore, prays for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 10. Ms. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, on the other hand, has opposed the aforesaid contentions of Mr. Munshaw and has laboriously contended before us that in arriving at the conclusion that the victim was negligent to the extent of 40%, the Tribunal totally relied upon a purported panchnama indicating that the motorcycle was proceeding at the speed of 90 kms an hour. Ms. Mehta further contended that there was no such panchnama available on the record indicating that the speed of the motorcycle was 90 kms an hour at the time of the accident. Ms. Mehta further submitted that in view of the evidence given by an eye-witness of the accident who was an uninterested witness, the Tribunal should have arrived at the conclusion that it was the driver of the bus who was alone responsible and after the accident, he had removed the bus into the extreme left portion while at the time of the accident, the bus was on the right-hand side of the road crossing the midline. Ms. Mehta submitted that in the facts of the present case, the findings of the Tribunal that there was contributory negligence on the part of the victim in driving his motorcycle is based on total misreading of the evidence on record and thus, it is a fit case where there should be no deduction for contributory negligence on the part of the victim. She, therefore, prayed for enhancement of the amount to Rs. 11,00,000/- without deducting any amount for the contributory negligence of the victim. Ms. Mehta, in support of her contention, relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court: 1. Sarala Dixit and another vs. Balwant Yadav and others, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 179 ; 2. A.P. State Road Transport Corporaton vs. K. Hemlatha and others, reported in (2008) 6 SCC 767 ; 3. Suresh Yallappa Patil vs. General Manager, KSRTC and others, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 406 . 11. Sarala Dixit and another vs. Balwant Yadav and others, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 179 ; 2. A.P. State Road Transport Corporaton vs. K. Hemlatha and others, reported in (2008) 6 SCC 767 ; 3. Suresh Yallappa Patil vs. General Manager, KSRTC and others, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 406 . 11. Therefore, the first question that falls for determination in these two appeals is whether the Tribunal was justified in assessing compensation by treating the contributory negligence of the victim to be 60%. 12. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we agree with Mr. Munshaw that there is no law in this country that if in an accident two vehicles are involved, the one bigger in size would be held responsible even if it appears from evidence on record that the driver of the smaller vehicle was really negligent in driving his vehicle whereas the driver of the bigger vehicle had no fault in the accident. Thus, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the bus being bigger of the two involved vehicles should be held to be responsible to the extent 40% although from the evidence on record the Tribunal held that its driver had not more than 20% to 25% negligence in the cause of accident is a perverse finding. 13. The next question is whether the finding that the driver of the bus had not more than 20% to 25% negligence in the accident is borne out by the materials on record. 14. At the very outset, we must accept the contention of Ms. Mehta that the finding of the Tribunal below that the panchnama indicated that the motorcycle was coming with the speed of 90 Kms an hour was based on total misreading of the said document. In the panchnama exhibited in this case, there is no such statement. Thus, the approach of the Tribunal in that regard was totally erroneous being based on total misreading of the evidence and cannot be approved. In such circumstances, we in exercise of our power conferred under Order 41 Rule 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure took into consideration the entire evidence of record and re-appreciated those by ourselves. 15. Thus, the approach of the Tribunal in that regard was totally erroneous being based on total misreading of the evidence and cannot be approved. In such circumstances, we in exercise of our power conferred under Order 41 Rule 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure took into consideration the entire evidence of record and re-appreciated those by ourselves. 15. On such consideration, we find that the alleged eye-witness examined by the claimants cannot be said to be a truthful witness as would appear from the fact that although he stated before the Tribunal that he did not know the victim, before the police in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he stated that he knew the victim as the employee of the Dena Bank and that he made such statement before police has been admitted by him before the Tribunal in cross-examination. It further appears that although in his evidence before Tribunal he stated that the bus was on the right hand side of the road at the time of accident and subsequently, the same was placed in extreme left side, he did not make such statement before the police. On the other hand, two different passengers of the bus, one of whom was a driver by profession and an employee of the Panchayet, supported the version of the driver of the bus that the victim was driving with exceedingly high speed and in the process of overtaking a truck, he struck his motor cycle on the right hand side of the front portion of the bus and had been ejected out of his motorcycle and was seriously injured. Both the aforesaid eye-witnesses had further corroborated the version of the driver of the bus that the accident occurred immediately after the bus had crossed a speed-breaker. We do not find any reason to disbelieve those two eyewitnesses, proved to be the passenger of the bus, who in unequivocal term had identified the victim as solely responsible for the accident. 16. Thus, on the basis of the versions of the two uninterested eye-witnesses examined on behalf of the owner of the bus it is clear that there was no fault on the part of the driver of the appellant and that it was the victim who was solely responsible for the accident. 16. Thus, on the basis of the versions of the two uninterested eye-witnesses examined on behalf of the owner of the bus it is clear that there was no fault on the part of the driver of the appellant and that it was the victim who was solely responsible for the accident. The fact that he was driving with high speed and at the time of accident he was in the process of overtaking a truck has been well established. We are unable to place any credence on the evidence of the shopkeeper who claimed to be an eye-witness and his version is also in conflict with the pachnama showing the positions of the vehicles at the time of accident. 17. We also do not find any justification in the reason given by the Tribunal below that the driver of the bus could remove his bus to further left hand side to avoid the accident, which was the basis of its finding that the attributable part of the negligence of the bus-driver should be 20% to 25%. When the bus had already been placed about 3-4 feet inside kuchha portion of the road (vide Ext-43), it would have been a risky affair to place the bus to further left hand side, which could endanger not only the lives of the pedestrians on the road but also those of the bus-passengers. 18. We, therefore, find no substance in the contention of Ms. Mehta that the Bus was removed to the left hand side of the road after the accident, which was the version of only the alleged eyewitness appearing on behalf of the claimants who had a shop of diamond cutting on the roadside. No reasonable individual would accept his submission that in stead of remaining inside the shop he was sitting outside his shop and his employee was polishing the diamonds particularly when we find that he narrated an improved version of the accident from the one stated in his statements under Section 161 of the Code. Such improved version of evidence is also contrary to the evidence given by the three eyewitnesses of the accident examined by the owner of the bus as well as Ext- 43. 19. We, now propose to deal with the decisions cited by Ms. Mehta. Such improved version of evidence is also contrary to the evidence given by the three eyewitnesses of the accident examined by the owner of the bus as well as Ext- 43. 19. We, now propose to deal with the decisions cited by Ms. Mehta. In the case of Sarala Dixit (Supra), the accident occurred in the city of Gwalior, on the cross section of two roads. One road was proceeding from Gola-Ka-Mandir situated on the western side and was running eastwards towards another locality known as J and K. It was thus running from west to east. It was 25ft. broad. It was known as Road No. 7. A narrow gauge railway line was running parallel to the said road on its southern side. At one place on the northern border of road No. 7 converged another public road from north to south. The said road was approaching Chandra Prasth Colony on the Southern side. It was an admitted position on record that the offending truck driven by respondent No. 2 was plying on road No. 7, it was coming from Gola-Ka-Mandir side, and was proceeding towards JandK locality situated towards eastern side. Thus, the truck was coming on road No. 7 from west to east. So far as the deceased was concerned, he was coming on a scooter along with the pillion rider on the north-south road leading towards Chandra Prasth Colony. It was also on record that at the intersection of the north-south road on which the scooter was traveling, the deceased was plying his scooter from north towards south. It had also been found from the record that at the intersection of north-south road with Road No. 7 the scooterist Rama Kant had already entered the intersection and had come almost half way so far as the breadth of road No. 7 was concerned. In other words, the scooterist had already entered the intersection and was on the middle of the said intersection when the truck coming from the west dashed with the scooter. Evidence of the appellants-witness No. 7 indicated that after Rama kant had crossed the centre of Road No. 7 the offending truck coming from the western side came with speed and dashed with the scooter. The result was that the right side of the scooter dashed with the left side front wheel of the truck. Evidence of the appellants-witness No. 7 indicated that after Rama kant had crossed the centre of Road No. 7 the offending truck coming from the western side came with speed and dashed with the scooter. The result was that the right side of the scooter dashed with the left side front wheel of the truck. Witness Ramji Sharma, appellants-witness No. 7, according to the Supreme Court, being the pillion rider on the scooter, was in the best position to depose as to what had actually happened on the spot. Witness Ramji Sharma stated that while proceeding from north to south on the Chandra Prasth Colony road deceased Rama Kant had already sounded the horn when he entered the intersection and he had also given a hand signal to indicate that he intended to go across road No. 7 for approaching the southern side of Road No. 7, having entered from the northern side of the intersection. The Supreme Court pointed out that at the relevant time there was no other truck on road No. 7 running from west to east. The exact spot of the accident on the intersection of Road No. 7 with the north-south Chandra Prasth Colony road also appeared to had been well established on the record of the case. It had been brought out in evidence that Rama Kant’s scooter had a coat of green paint and it was the left side of the truck’s bumper and the truck’s left front wheel surface that showed green paint marks. The left hand-light of the truck was also found damaged after the accident. There was no evidence that the right side of the bumper of the truck bore any green paint marks of any damage as a result of the collision between the truck and the scooter. Witness Ramji Sharma did not appear to have received any serious injuries. Dr. Jain, Appellants-witness No. 3 who had performed post-mortem on the deceased had deposed that he had found five ante-mortem external injuries on the dead body of the deceased and they were all on his right side. There was abrasion on the right temple and the right side of the face. There was another abrasion on the right side of the chest and the right shoulder with fracture on the upper half of the right humerus. There was an abrasion on the right side of the waist. There was abrasion on the right temple and the right side of the face. There was another abrasion on the right side of the chest and the right shoulder with fracture on the upper half of the right humerus. There was an abrasion on the right side of the waist. There was another abrasion over right thigh and right knee. The last abrasion was on the right leg and the right ankle with fracture of the femur near the knee joint. This, according to the Supreme Court, clearly indicated that the impact of the front left wheel of the truck was on the right side of the scooter driver, Rama Kant. That clearly showed that Rama Kant was travelling inside the intersection on the north-south road from north to south when the truck which came from the western side dashed with the scooter and threw off the scooter driver and the pillion rider. It was, therefore, clearly established that while Rama Kant’s scooter had crossed the centre of road No. 7 the offending truck coming from the western side dashed with the right side of the scooter which was proceeding across that road and was going towards the southern side of the intersection having entered the same on the northern side of road No. 7. So far as the exact place of impact on the intersection was concerned, the Supreme Court noted that the photographs Ex. P/11, P/8 and P/7 indicated that the scooter lay at the distance of 11 ft. from the northern border of road No. 7. The scooter was lying almost lengthwise on the road with its rear wheel towards the west, that is, towards the direction from which the truck had come and had approached the intersection. The scooter’s front portion was towards the west and its underside was towards the south. The photographs also showed that the dead body of Rama Kant was lying slightly diagonally across the width of the road. The head was pointing slightly to the south-west of the centre of the road. The distance between the scooter and the dead body was 6 ft. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, any one walking from west to east on road No. 7 would have first passed by the dead body of Rama Kant and then would have approached the fallen scooter. The distance between the scooter and the dead body was 6 ft. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, any one walking from west to east on road No. 7 would have first passed by the dead body of Rama Kant and then would have approached the fallen scooter. It was, therefore, clearly established that the collision between the truck and the scooter had occurred somewhere near the centre of road No. 7. It showed that the scooter had already entered the intersection from the northern border of road No. 7, had travelled up to 11 ft. across the width of the road at the said intersection and but for the accident it would have travelled further south and would have passed through the southern outlet of the intersection. The Supreme Court, therefore, concluded that it became apparent that when the scooterist had entered the intersection from the northern side and had covered almost half the distance of the width of that intersection the offending truck came from the western side and dashed against the scooter and threw it off along with the driver and the pillion rider. That indicated how fast the truck would have been driven from west to east on the main road and because of that speed the scooterist who had already crossed half the width of the road, was thrown off. That, according to the Supreme Court, also indicated that the driver of the truck, respondent No. 2, had not cared to see the scooterist who had almost reached half way across his path while he was proceeding from west to east on Road No. 7 and without caring for the safety of the scooterist who would have been clearly visible to him in the broad day light while he was coming from the western side of the road and without least bothering for the safety of the scooterist crossing the intersection and ran over the scooter and threw it off. In such a fact, the Apex Court made the following observations: “All these tell-tale facts unequivocally point to one and only conclusion that it was the rash and negligent driving by Respondent No. 2, a young boy aged 20, who was a novice driver without a licence to drive such heavy vehicle, that had caused this unfortunate accident. In such a fact, the Apex Court made the following observations: “All these tell-tale facts unequivocally point to one and only conclusion that it was the rash and negligent driving by Respondent No. 2, a young boy aged 20, who was a novice driver without a licence to drive such heavy vehicle, that had caused this unfortunate accident. Deceased Rama Kant was not at all negligent and had not contributed to the accident save and except to the extent of bringing his body for being subjected to the impact of the on-coming truck. If at all, his only contribution was that he became a victim of this accident by being on spot on that fateful morning. It is, therefore, not possible for us to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that deceased Rama Kant had contributed to the accident by his own negligence to the extent of 75% or even to the extent of any lesser percentage. On this evidence the High Court was justified in reversing the finding of the Trial Court that deceased Rama Kant was guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 75%. It must be held that deceased Rama Kant was not at all negligent and the entire cent per cent negligence rested on the shoulder of Respondent No. 2, driver of the truck.” In our opinion, the said decision cannot have any application to the facts of the present case where out of the four witnesses who claimed to be eyewitnesses, three deposed that the victim was coming with tremendous speed and while overtaking a truck, crossed the middle line of the road, and hit the bus coming from the opposite direction whereas the bus was coming in correct track and even brought the bus to the extreme left hand side of the road by encroaching even the kuccha portion of the road. Moreover, the Pancnama corroborated the position of the bus as stated by the three witnesses. In the case of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (Supra), the Tribunal had noticed that the deceased was driving vehicle at high speed with a view to attend the marriage function. The manner of the accident as deposed by the claimant’s witnesses indicated that the deceased was partially responsible for the accident. In the case of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (Supra), the Tribunal had noticed that the deceased was driving vehicle at high speed with a view to attend the marriage function. The manner of the accident as deposed by the claimant’s witnesses indicated that the deceased was partially responsible for the accident. In such a case, according to the Supreme Court, the High Court was wrong in holding that the deceased had not contributed to the accident and there was no contributory negligence. Taking into account the evidence of the witnesses, the Supreme Court held that there was contributory negligence of the victim and the proportion should be fixed at 1 : 4. In that context, the Supreme Court observed as follows: “To determine the question as to who contributed to the happening of the accident, it becomes relevant to ascertain who was driving his vehicle negligently and rashly and in case both were so doing who were more responsible for the accident and who of the two had the last opportunity to avoid the accident. In case the damages are to be apportioned, it must also be found that the plaintiff’s fault was one of the causes of the damage and once that condition is fulfilled, the damages have to be apportioned according to the apportioned share of the responsibility. If the negligence on the plaintiff’s part has also contributed to damage this cannot be ignored in assessing the damages. He can be found guilty of contributory negligence if he ought to have foreseen that if he did not act as a reasonable, reasoned man, he might be hit himself and he must take into account the possibility of others being careless.” If we apply the principles to the facts of the present case, we should without any hesitation hold that the victim is not entitled to any amount of compensation as he was solely responsible for the accident. The above decision thus rather goes against the claimants. In the case of Suresh Yellappa Patil (Supra), while considering the question of contributory negligence in the facts of the said case, the Supreme Court made the following observations: “In our view the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court are not sustainable in law. No reasons have been recorded for disbelieving the statement of eyewitness PW 2. No reasons have been recorded for disbelieving the statement of eyewitness PW 2. He has been disbelieved only on the ground that had the driver been negligent he himself would not have taken the injured to the hospital. This by itself is no reason to either disbelieve PW 2 or to believe RW 1. Thus the finding arrived at by the High Court that the appellant himself contributed to the extent of 50 per cent in causing the accident cannot be accepted.” In the case before us, as pointed out earlier, we are convinced that the victim was solely responsible for the accident and there is no scope of blaming the driver of the bus in any way and at the same time, we have found no material to disbelieve the witnesses examined on behalf of the owner of the bus. Thus, the said decision is of no avail to the client of Ms. Mehta. We, accordingly, find that the decisions cited by Ms. Mehta do not assist her clients in any away. 20. On consideration of the entire materials on record, we find that the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in holding that the percentage of negligence of the bus-driver should be held to be 40% whereas the evidence on record disproves such findings. 21. Once we hold that due to contributory negligence solely on the part of the driver of the motorcycle the accident occurred, we are left with no other alternative but to hold that the claimants were not entitled to claim any amount of compensation whatsoever except the amount of the statutory “no fault” liability. 22. We thus find no reason to go into the question of assessment based on the salary of the victim. Even that assessment was wrong inasmuch as the same was calculated on the basis of scale of revised salary given effect to after the accident during the pendency of the proceedings. 23. We, therefore, set aside the award and reduce the amount to the statutory amount under Section 140 of the Act. If the claimants had already received the said amount, in that event, no further amount should be payable. 24. The appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle is allowed while the one filed by the claimants is dismissed. 23. We, therefore, set aside the award and reduce the amount to the statutory amount under Section 140 of the Act. If the claimants had already received the said amount, in that event, no further amount should be payable. 24. The appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle is allowed while the one filed by the claimants is dismissed. The claimants are directed to refund excess amount that they have received pursuant to award impugned in terms of the interim order passed in this appeal, if any within a period of two months from today with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of receiving the amount till the date of refund. 25. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs. P P P P P