JUDGMENT : N.K. Mody, J. This order shall also govern disposal of M.A. Nos. 2451 to 2455 and 2930 to 2935 of 2010, as all these appeals arose out of one accident and common award dated 5.4.2010 in Claim Case Nos. 63 and 316 to 321 of 2007 passed by First Additional M.A.C.T., Indore, whereby the learned Tribunal allowed all claim petitions and awarded compensation. 2. Heard on the application for condonation of delay. The delay is of 23 days. Sufficient ground is made out for condoning the delay. The application is allowed and the delay stands condoned. 3. The short facts of the case are that seven claim petitions were filed before the learned Tribunal alleging that on 5.2.2007 deceased Suresh Sahu was travelling in Tata Safari bearing registration No. MP 09-CA 8671, which was owned by Satish Patil and insured with respondent No. 5. It was alleged that at the relevant time, in the said vehicle other appellants were travelling as passengers. It was alleged that said vehicle met with an accident with a truck bearing registration No. MH 06-K 6501 which was being driven by respondent No. 2 rashly and negligently owned by respondent No. 1 and the same was insured with respondent No. 3. It was alleged that respondent No. 2 all of a sudden stopped the truck in the middle of the road with the result Tata Safari in which deceased Suresh Sahu was travelling along with the other appellants met with an accident and passed away while other appellants sustained grievous injuries. It was alleged that claim petitions be allowed and compensation be awarded. 4. Claim petitions were contested by respondent No. 3 on the ground that it was rash and negligent driving of the offending Tata Safari vehicle which caused accident as Tata Safari was following the truck without maintaining reasonable distance. It was alleged that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no compensation can be awarded and claim petition be dismissed. The respondent No. 5 also contested claim petition on the ground that since the deceased and appellants were travelling as passengers in a private vehicle, therefore, respondent No. 5 is not liable for payment of compensation. It was prayed that claim petitions be dismissed. The respondent No. 5 also contested claim petition on the ground that since the deceased and appellants were travelling as passengers in a private vehicle, therefore, respondent No. 5 is not liable for payment of compensation. It was prayed that claim petitions be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, learned Tribunal allowed the claim petitions filed by the appellants and held both the drivers of the vehicles liable for the accident due to rash and negligent driving. However, learned Tribunal exonerated respondent No. 3 on the ground that respondent No. 2 was not possessing valid driving licence and held respondent Nos. 4 and 5 liable to pay the amount of compensation. Being aggrieved by the amount of compensation, appeals have been filed by the appellants for enhancement while appeals and civil revisions have been filed by respondent No. 5 on the ground that learned Tribunal committed error in holding respondent No. 5 liable for payment of compensation for the entire amount. In the appeal filed by the appellants, it is submitted that in a death case, learned Tribunal assessed income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000 per month and after deducting/3rd applied the multiplier of 15 while the deceased Suresh Sahu was an eminent lawyer and was practising at Bhopal. It is submitted that the amount awarded is inadequate which deserves to be enhanced. It is submitted that appeal be allowed and amount of compensation be enhanced. 5. Mr. Manoj Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, submits that learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating respondent No. 3 and in holding respondent No. 5 liable for the entire amount of compensation when the learned Tribunal found that drivers of both the vehicles are equally liable for the accident. It is submitted that since the criminal case was registered against respondent No. 2 and challan was also filed against respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 did not enter into the witness-box and respondent No. 3 also failed to examine respondent No. 2 as witness, therefore, learned Tribunal committed error in holding respondent Nos. 4 and 5 liable for payment of compensation to the extent of 50 per cent. 4 and 5 liable for payment of compensation to the extent of 50 per cent. It is submitted that the accident took place in the night and eyewitness admitted that offending truck was not having tail light, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal committed error in holding respondent Nos. 4 and 5 liable for payment of compensation to the extent of 50 per cent. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, learned counsel submits that the amount awarded is just and proper and no case for further enhancement is made out. It is submitted that appeals filed by the appellants be dismissed and the appeals filed by respondent No. 5 be allowed so far as it relates to respondent No. 5. 6. Mr. Pradeep Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, submits that since the accident occurred on the middle of the road and Tata Safari in which the appellants and deceased were travelling, was following the truck and the accident took place from the back side, learned Tribunal rightly held that drivers of both the vehicles were liable for the accident. So far as payment of compensation is concerned, learned counsel submits that the amount awarded is just and proper and requires no interference. So far as exoneration of respondent No. 3 is concerned, it is submitted that since the respondent No. 2 was not possessing driving licence, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated respondent No. 3. It is submitted that the appeal filed by appellants and the appeals filed by respondent No. 5 be dismissed. 7. The full details of the appeals and the cross-appeals filed by respondent No. 5 are indicated hereinbelow : S. No. M.A. No. Claim No. Claimant Amount awarded Cross-appeal (1) 2935 of 2010 318 of 2007 Varsha injured Rs. 18,000 2455 of 2010 (2) 2933 of 2010 319 of 2007 Anand injured Rs. 8,000 (3) 2934 of 2010 321 of 2007 Anju injured Rs. 45,000 2451 of 2010 (4) 2932 of 2010 317 of 2007 Pranay injured Rs. 8,000 (5) 2931 of 2010 316 of 2007 Hemant injured Rs. 76,181 2452 of 2010 (6) 2920 of 2010 320 of 2007 Jaya injured Rs. 7,07,185 2454 of 2010 (7) 2929 of 2010 63 of 2007 Bhavna deceased Rs. 7,35,000 2453 of 2010 8. 45,000 2451 of 2010 (4) 2932 of 2010 317 of 2007 Pranay injured Rs. 8,000 (5) 2931 of 2010 316 of 2007 Hemant injured Rs. 76,181 2452 of 2010 (6) 2920 of 2010 320 of 2007 Jaya injured Rs. 7,07,185 2454 of 2010 (7) 2929 of 2010 63 of 2007 Bhavna deceased Rs. 7,35,000 2453 of 2010 8. So far as liability is concerned, rule 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 reads as under: "(23) Distance from vehicles in front: The driver of a motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow or stop." 9. In the said accident, Suresh Sahu has died while in the other appeals which are six in number, appellants sustained injuries, in the claim petitions, appellants have not impleaded the driver of the vehicle Tata Safari as party to the claim petitions. It is alleged that at the relevant time, one Hemant was driving the vehicle but he has lot been examined to explain as to in what circumstances the accident took place. Since learned Tribunal found that drivers of both the vehicles were equally liable for the accident, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly held responsible the owners of both the vehicles and respondent No. 5 who has insured Tata Safari. The exoneration of respondent No. 3 is only on the ground that the driver of the said vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence, therefore, this court is of the view that the learned Tribunal was not justified in exonerating respondent No. 3, at the most right of recovery could have been given to respondent No. 3 as the appellants and deceased Suresh Sahu were third parties. So far as apportionment between respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 4 and 5 is concerned, it was a case of joint tortfeasors. Therefore, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were liable jointly and severally. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, this court is of the view that in all the cases the amount awarded is on lower side. 10. In M.A. No. 2935 of 2010 of which cross-appeal is M.A. No. 2455 of 2010 wherein injured is Varsha, who sustained fracture in jaw and other injuries and the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 18,000 which is further enhanced by Rs. 10. In M.A. No. 2935 of 2010 of which cross-appeal is M.A. No. 2455 of 2010 wherein injured is Varsha, who sustained fracture in jaw and other injuries and the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 18,000 which is further enhanced by Rs. 12,000. Thus, the appellant Varsha is entitled for a sum of Rs. 30,000. 11. In M.A. No. 2933 of 2010 where appellant-injured is Anand Sahu to whom learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 8,000 which is further enhanced by Rs. 8,000. Thus, appellant Anand Sahu is entitled for a sum of Rs. 16,000. 12. In M.A. No. 2934 of 2010 wherein the appellant-injured is Anju Sahu who sustained fracture of nasal bone and learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 45,000 is further enhanced by Rs. 45,000. Thus, appellant Anju Sahu is entitled for a sum of Rs. 90,000. 13. In M.A. No. 2932 of 2010 where injured-appellant is Pranay Sahu and learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8,000 is further enhanced by Rs. 10,000. Thus, appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 18,000. 14. In M.A. No. 2931 of 2010 wherein the appellant-injured is Hemant Sahu who sustained injuries in his jaw and learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 76,181. This is further enhanced by Rs. 25,000. Thus, appellant Hemant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,01,181. 15. In M.A. No. 2930 of 2010, wherein appellant-injured is Jaya Sahu who sustained multiple fractures of spinal cord, backbone, cervical bone and head injuries and the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 7,07,185, the same is enhanced as under: Towards permanent disability Rs. 5,20,000 Towards medical expenses Rs. 3,00,000 Towards pain and suffering Rs. 25,000 Towards transport expenses Rs. 25,000 Towards special diet Rs. 15,000 Towards attendant expenses Rs. 25,000 Towards future medical expenses Rs. 1,00,000 Total Rs. 10,10,000 16. Thus appellant Jaya is further entitled for a sum of Rs. 3,02,815. 17. In M.A. No. 2929 of 2010 deceased is Suresh Sahu and learned Tribunal after assessing monthly income of Rs. 6,000 deducted ?rd towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 15 and awarded Rs. 7,35,000. This court is of the view that income assessed is just and proper but deduction of ?rd for personal expenses is on higher side which ought to be amended to th. Similarly, looking to the age multiplier of 16 ought to have been applied. 6,000 deducted ?rd towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 15 and awarded Rs. 7,35,000. This court is of the view that income assessed is just and proper but deduction of ?rd for personal expenses is on higher side which ought to be amended to th. Similarly, looking to the age multiplier of 16 ought to have been applied. Thus, appellants are entitled for the following amount: Towards loss of dependency Rs. 8,64,000 Towards funeral expenses Rs. 5,000 Towards loss to estate Rs. 5,000 Towards loss of consortium Rs. 5,000 Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 15,000 Total Rs. 8,94,000 18. Thus, the appellants are entitled to the amount of Rs. 8,94,000 instead of Rs. 7,35,000. The enhanced amount comes to Rs. 1,59,000. 19. In all the cases, appellants shall be entitled for interest at 8 per cent per annum from the date of application. Claim petition in M.A. No. 2930 of 2010 where the injured is Jaya Sahu and M.A. No. 2929 of 2010 where the deceased is Suresh Sahu, the amount awarded shall be deposited by the insurance company with the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal is directed to invest 80 per cent of the said amount on a long-term fixed deposit in the name of appellants in the nearest nationalised bank in the area where the appellants are residing, with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance. Interest on the said amount shall be credited on monthly basis in S.B. account of appellants which shall be opened by the appellants from where they can withdraw the amount as per their needs. However, on an application by the appellants this condition could be modified by the learned Tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellants and M.A. No. 2929 of 2010 in the name of appellant No. 1. 20. With the aforesaid modifications all the appeals filed by the appellants stand allowed and amount is enhanced as indicated above and the findings relating to apportionment stand quashed and the appeals filed by the respondent No. 5 stand dismissed. Copy of the order placed in all the connected cases. No order as to costs.