Vishnu Chandra Gupta J.— As all the Motor Accidents Claim Petitions are related to one and same accident and the question of law and facts involved in all the four appeals are common, therefore, all these four appeals are being decided by this common judgment. These appeals under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') relating to four different awards passed on 6.1.2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, court No.1, Lucknow (In short 'Tribunal') dismissing all the Motor Accident Claim Petitions having numbers 305 of 2003, 306 of 2003, 307 of 2003 and 308 of 2003. Brief facts of the cases for deciding these appeals are that on 3.5.2003 at about 8.00 a.m. appellant Pyare Lal was going on scooter alongwith his wife Smt. Madhu aged about 26 years, niece Km. Babli aged about 3 years and son Prashant Kumar aged about 2 years to L.D.A. Colony and when he reached at over bridge Kanausi, a truck having registration No. U.M.O-9988 coming from the side of Barabirva and driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner hit the tempo having registration no. U.P. 32/Z-6901. Thereafter the truck became dis balance and over turned. The claim petitioner Pyare Lal and other occupants of the scooter came into the clutches of over turned truck. Consequently, all the occupants of the scooter received serious injuries. However, Prashant, Smt. Madhu and Km. Babli succumbed to injuries. Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 305 of 2003 was filed by Pyare Lal on account of death occurred in the accident of Smt. Madhu. Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 306 of 2003 was filed for the injury sustained by Pyare Lal in the accident. Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 307 of 2003 was filed on account of death of Km. Babli by her parents Babulal and Smt. Deepa. Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 308 of 2003 was filed by Pyare Lal on account of death of his son Prashant Kumar. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of these appeals and of tribunal. Babli by her parents Babulal and Smt. Deepa. Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 308 of 2003 was filed by Pyare Lal on account of death of his son Prashant Kumar. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of these appeals and of tribunal. All these claim petitions were filed under sections 166, 163-A read with section 140 of the Act against truck owner Vinod Singh, insurer of truck New India Assurance Company Ltd., owner of the Tempo Samresh Misra and insurer of tempo Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. These claim petitions were contested by all the respondents. They filed their respective written statements in all the cases separately. On the basis of the pleadings issues were framed by the tribunal. Except issue no. 1 all other issues are common. Issue No. 1 framed in Claim Petition No.305/2003, 306/2003, 307/2003, 308/2003 are reproduced herein below:- Petition No. 305/03 Whether the alleged accident occurred on 3.5.2003 at about 08.00 A.M. on Kanausi over bridge within the circle of P.S. Manak Nagar, Distt, Lucknow with truck No. U.M.O. -9988 & Tempo U.P. -32/Z-6901 in which Smt. Madhu W/o Pyare Lal died due to rash and negligent driving of the both the vehicles by its driver? Petition No.306/2003 Whether the alleged accident occurred on 3.5.2003 at about 08.00 A.M. on Kanausi over bridge within the circle of P.S. Manak Nagar, Distt, Lucknow with truck No. U.M.O. -9988 and Tempo U.P. -32/Z-6901 in which Pyare Lal received injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the both the vehicles by its driver? Petition No.307/203 Whether the alleged accident occurred on 3.5.2003 at about 08.00 A.M. on Kanausi overbridge within the circle of P.S. Manak Nagar, Distt, Lucknow with truck No. U.M.O. -9988 and Tempo U.P. -32/Z-6901 in which Km. BablI D/o Babulal died due to rash and negligent driving of the both the vehicles by its driver? Petition No. 308 of 2003 Whether the alleged accident occurred on 3.5.2003 at about 08.00 a.m. on Kanausi over bridge within the circle of P.S. Manak Nagar, Distt, Lucknow with truck No. U.M.O. -9988 and Tempo U.P. -32/Z-6901 in which Prashant Kumar died due to rash and negligent driving of the both the vehicles by its driver? Issues 2, 3,4,5,6,7 are common. Issues 2, 3,4,5,6,7 are common. They are reproduced herein below:- 2.Whether the alleged accident occurred on the aforesaid date, time and place due to contributory negligence of the vehicles involved in the alleged accident? If yes, its effect? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If yes, with whom and upto what extant? 4. Whether New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Is not liable to make the payment of compensation? If yes, its effect? 5. Whether the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is not liable to make the payment of compensation? If yes, its effect? 6. Whether the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident were not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident? If yes, its effect? 7. To what relief,if any, is the petitioner entitled? From the side of the petitioner Pyare Lal, he examined himself, who was scooterist and was driving the scooter at the time of accident. Consequently his presence cannot be doubted at the spot. He categorically stated that the truck hit his scooter. The tempo also hit the scooter. Thereafter the truck over turned upon the scooter. Consequently, his son Prashant Kumar and niece Babli scummed to injuries on the spot. His wife Madhu passed away in KGMC, Lucknow in the same evening at about 4.00 p.m. He also received serious injury. In statement on oath he stated that number of his scooter is U.P.32/AF-6157. He has categorically admitted that his scooter was not insured by any of the insurance company. One more eye-witness Vinod Kumar Yadav who was going on motorcycle when accident occurred, was also examined. This witness lodged the First Information Report of the accident. He stated that tempo was coming from west to east and truck was coming from east to west. Both truck and tempo collided and thereafter the truck over turned upon the scooter at the time of accident. He also categorically stated that three more persons were on the scooter. He stated that tempo was about 200 Ft. ahead from him. The evidence of P.W. 1 Pyare Lal and P.W. 2 Vinod Kumar Yadav was recorded in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 308 of 2003. In Motor Accident Claim Petitions Nos. 305 of 2003 and 306 of 2003 Pyare Lal has been examined as witness to support the claim. He stated that tempo was about 200 Ft. ahead from him. The evidence of P.W. 1 Pyare Lal and P.W. 2 Vinod Kumar Yadav was recorded in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 308 of 2003. In Motor Accident Claim Petitions Nos. 305 of 2003 and 306 of 2003 Pyare Lal has been examined as witness to support the claim. In Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 307 of 2003 Babulal father of deceased Babli was examined as P.W. 1 who was not eye witness. The certified copy of statement of Babulal truck driver was placed on record in MACP Nos. 306 of 2003, 307 of 2003 and 308 of 2003 with no objection from any of the party. The certified copy of on oath statement of Vinod Kumar Yadav PW-2 recorded in MACP No. 308 of 2003, who lodged F.I.R. and claiming himself as eye witness, kept on record without objection by any party in MACP Nos. 305 of 2003, 306 of 2003 and 307 of 2003. Apart from the aforesaid oral evidence certified copy of post-mortem report, charge-sheet filed by the police against owner of truck Babulal and driver of Tempo Satish Kumar, driving License of Pyare Lal, driving license of Babulal, driving License of Satish Kumar, receipt of Road Tax, insurance cover note, permit, registration certificate, fitness and insurance policy by were filed in all the claim petitions by the respective parties. From the side of truck owner the driver of truck Babulal was examined as DW.1 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 305/2003. He stated that scooter try to overtake tempo which was coming from opposite direction. In this process scooter hit the tempo. Thereafter scooter came in clutches of truck and also hit the truck. It was further stated that accident was occurred due to negligence of scooterist and driver of Tempo. He was not negligent. His vehicle was in controlled speed. He escaped from the spot and by that time the truck was not turn turtled. After considering the evidence of the witnesses produced, perusing the documents filed and taking into consideration all these documents and evidence on record given on behalf of parties, the tribunal found that the accident was not occurred either due to negligence of truck driver or of tempo driver. After considering the evidence of the witnesses produced, perusing the documents filed and taking into consideration all these documents and evidence on record given on behalf of parties, the tribunal found that the accident was not occurred either due to negligence of truck driver or of tempo driver. The accident was occurred due to the sole negligence of the scooterist, who was driving the scooter with three passengers thereon against the provisions of the Act. Consequently, on the basis of the findings recorded on issues 1 and 2, the Tribunal decided issues 3, 4, 5 and 7. However, while deciding issue no. 6, it was held that the driver of the truck was having an effective and valid driving license at the time of accident. However, tempo driver Satish Kumar was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, but in view of the fact that the driver of the Tempo was also not found negligent, therefore, non-availability of effective and valid driving license with the driver of the tempo makes no difference. After taking into account the finding recorded on different issues all the four petitions were dismissed by the award separately passed on 6.01.2010. As all the Motor Accident Claim Petitions were related to the same accident and they have been dismissed on the common ground that Pyare Lal, the scooterist, and was driving the scooter at the time of accident rashly and negligently. Consequently, Pyare Lal was solely responsible, as such the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. Being the first appellate court this court is competent to enter into findings of fact arrived at after re-examination of the evidence on record and if finds any illegality in appreciating the evidence by the tribunal or finds any perversity, the same may be reversed in view of Order XLI Rule 24 and 33 of Code of Civil Procedure. If it was found by the Tribunal that Pyare Lal was solely responsible for this accident and the accident was occurred due to sole negligence of Pyare Lal, even in that event, the petition filed on behalf of the person travelling on scooter along with Pyare Lal could not be dismissed. At the most the petitions filed by Pyare Lal claiming compensation may be dismissed, but the petition filed for the death of Km. At the most the petitions filed by Pyare Lal claiming compensation may be dismissed, but the petition filed for the death of Km. Babli by her parents cannot be dismissed and it ought to have been allowed against Pyare Lal. Therefore, this gives us a reason to scrutinies the evidence on record and to examine whether there is any perversity in the findings recorded by the tribunal. We will take findings recorded by the tribunal on different issues, one by one. Issue No.1 and 2 The learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that it is not in dispute that truck and tempo collided each other and thereafter truck overturned and the scooter on which Pyare Lal, his wife Madhu, son Prasant Kumar and nice Babli were pillion riders came under the truck. So, it cannot be said that truck driver was not at all negligent in driving the truck. By applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur negligence in this case may be determined. The collision in between truck and tempo was head on. The truck, thereafter, over turned as the driver lost control over truck. Therefore, considering all these facts and applying principle of res ipsa loquitur the negligence of truck driver and tempo driver cannot be ignored. They may be held negligent in driving the vehicles as well as in causing the injuries to the occupants on the scooter. The FIR has been lodged by Vinod Kumar Yadav who has been examined from the side of the claim petitioners as witness. In the FIR this witness mentioned that both truck and tempo collided and scooter came in between these two vehicles. In view of the statements recorded about the accident of claimant scooterist Pyare Lal, Babulal the driver of truck and Vinod Kumar Yadav, the person who lodged the First Information Report soon after the accident and the contents of the FIR if taken together, there is no consistency in the statements, but one thing is common in all that three vehicles were involved in this accident. According to claimant Pyare Lal, truck and tempo both hit the scooter and thereafter truck overturned and hit the scooter. As per the statement of Vinod Kumar Yadav truck and tempo collided and truck overturned upon scooter. According to claimant Pyare Lal, truck and tempo both hit the scooter and thereafter truck overturned and hit the scooter. As per the statement of Vinod Kumar Yadav truck and tempo collided and truck overturned upon scooter. However, in the FIR lodged by Vinod Kumar Yadav it has been mentioned that truck and tempo collided and scooter came in between the two vehicles. So far as Babulal the truck driver is concerned, he gave separate story by saying that when scooterist was trying to overtake tempo, he hit the tempo. Thereafter scooterist hit the truck because the scooter lost control and came into the clutches of the truck. Babulal categorically stated that truck was not turned turtle till he remained on the spot. As per statement on oath of truck driver Babulal, he escaped from the spot after the accident. From the analysis of evidence adduced by the parties it appears that Pyare Lal and Vinod Kumar Yadav are attributing the negligence of drivers of truck and tempo in this accident. However, Babulal, the truck driver are attributing negligence of scooterist and tempo driver, but from the FIR it appears that scooteriest was in between truck and tempo when the accident was occurred. Statement of Vinod Kumar Yadav reveals that scooter was behind the tempo, is not believable in view of the contents of FIR, the first version given by him in the police station after the accident. In the FIR he categorically stated that scooter was in between truck and tempo. If it is taken to be correct the scooter would be in between truck and tempo, it could be possible only when scooter must be ahead to the tempo or it crossed over the tempo by overtaking it. The manner in which accident occurred it seems probable that while overtaking the tempo scooterist all of sudden found that truck came in front of him. To save the scooterist truck driver applied emergency break or to take sharp turn. On account of high speed the truck went out of control. At that time he also found tempo coming before him . In this process tempo driver lost control and hit the truck. Truck over turn and scooterist came therein. To save the scooterist truck driver applied emergency break or to take sharp turn. On account of high speed the truck went out of control. At that time he also found tempo coming before him . In this process tempo driver lost control and hit the truck. Truck over turn and scooterist came therein. Thus, considering all the statement of drivers and version of the FIR, we are of the view that this accident was actually occurred due to contributory negligence of all three drivers i.e., of truck, tempo and scooter respectively. So far as contribution towards accident is concerned, in our considered opinion the contribution of truck driver, tempo driver and scooter driver would be in the ratio of 50:30:20. and held that in the aforesaid accident Prashant Kumar aged about 2 years, Km. Babli, aged about 3 years, Smt. Madhu died and Pyare Lal got injuries ( No evidence has been brought on record in the form of documents). Accordingly issues 1 and 2 are decided Issue No. 6 The findings on issue 6 relate to validity of driving licences of truck and tempo drivers. The Tribunal held that driving licence of truck driver was valid and effective at the time of accident. However, the driving licence of tempo driver was not valid and effective on the date of accident because its validity was up to 26.4.2003 and accident was occurred on 3.5.2003. No evidence was brought on record to this effect that the licence was renewed. No challenge to this finding has been made by insurance company or by any other respondent, therefore, the finding recorded on issue no. 6 by the Tribunal to this extent need not call for any interference. Hence issue No.6 is accordingly decided. Issue No.4 Issues 4 and 5 are related to liability of respective insurance companies regarding compensation. In view of the findings recorded on issues 1, 2 and 6 the insurer of truck New India Assurance Company Ltd. is liable to pay the amount of compensation on behalf of owner of truck in these claim petitions to the extent of 50%. Issue no.4 is accordingly decided. In view of the findings recorded on issues 1, 2 and 6 the insurer of truck New India Assurance Company Ltd. is liable to pay the amount of compensation on behalf of owner of truck in these claim petitions to the extent of 50%. Issue no.4 is accordingly decided. Issue No.5 So far as issue no.5 is concerned, it relates to responsibility of insurer of tempo the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. In view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal and also by this court that driver Satish Kumar Mishra was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, as such, the owner of vehicle has violated the terms of policy while plying the vehicle and he is primarily liable to pay the compensation to the extent of 30%. Admittedly, in this case the deceased was third party so, the insurer of the tempo is bound to make the payment of compensation to the extent of 30%, for which the owner of tempo is liable to pay. However, at the same time after making payment of compensation the insurance company will be entitled to recover the amount from the owner of the tempo as held by us in FAFO No. 893 of 2009 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Gita Mishra and others decided on 06.08.2012. Issue no.5 is accordingly decided. Issue No.3 and 7 Issue no.3 and 7 are related to relief and determination of the amount of compensation and the entitlement thereof. In view of the findings recorded on issues 1 and 2 the claim petitioners are entitled for compensation from the owners and insurer of the vehicles involved in this accident to the extent of their liability determined under issues 1 and 2. To determine compensation payable in respect each case the fact of each case has to be taken into consideration distinctly. MACP NO.305/2003 Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 305 of 2003 is related to the death of Smt. Madhu, wife of Pyare Lal claimant. In this petition her age is mentioned as 26 years. The claimant in this case is only Pyare Lal who is husband of deceased and his age is mentioned as 30 years. It was mentioned that she was doing work of teaching and embroidery and was earning about a sum of Rs.3000/- per month. Pyare Lal examined in this case. In this petition her age is mentioned as 26 years. The claimant in this case is only Pyare Lal who is husband of deceased and his age is mentioned as 30 years. It was mentioned that she was doing work of teaching and embroidery and was earning about a sum of Rs.3000/- per month. Pyare Lal examined in this case. He could not prove the income of his wife from the aforesaid source to the tune of Rs. 3000/- per month by any reliable and cogent evidence. He categorically stated on oath that at the time of accident of his wife her age was 30 years. He also stated that he is working as fabricator and disclosed his earnings in the claim petition as Rs. 5000/- per month. On oath he also stated that his income was Rs. 5000/- per month from the aforesaid business. Claim petitioner Pyare Lal categorically admitted during the course of cross-examination that he remarried with one Manisha after about two years from the date of alleged accident, as such it is proved that he remarried after loss of his wife Madhu. Considering all these aspects of the matter and evidence on record the income of deceased Madhu has not been established. In view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arun Kumar Agarwal Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2010 (S.C.) 3426 there Lordships held that the services rendered by non earning house wife towards her children and husband cannot be equated with services render by the house keeper or servant. The services of non earning house wife towards husband and children would be invaluable. However, it was further held that even in the claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, provisions of Clause 6 of II Schedule under section 163-A of the Act may be applied. In Clause 6 it has been provided that the income of non earning house wife would be 1/3 of income of earning surviving husband. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in this case admittedly Pyare Lal remarried, hence, the dependency of the deceased should be counted for two years only and multipliers should be applied of two and not of 17. We do not find any substance in this argument of learned counsel for the appellants. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in this case admittedly Pyare Lal remarried, hence, the dependency of the deceased should be counted for two years only and multipliers should be applied of two and not of 17. We do not find any substance in this argument of learned counsel for the appellants. The claim petitioner Pyare Lal lost his wife along with his child in this accident. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was about 30 years and claimant's age was around 30 plus. In such situation if he married again, this will not be a mitigating circumstance to reduce the multiplier. However, the customary amount towards consortium may not be allowed in view of the remarriage. In this case, the income of Pyare Lal has been proved by claimant himself at Rs.5000/- per month. No contrary evidence in this regard has been brought on record from the side of the respondents. Therefore, the income of Pyare Lal the husband, at Rs. 5000/- is fixed at the time of accident. The 1/3rd income of husband comes to Rs. 1,667/- per month which shall be treated to be the income of wife Madhu in the light of clause 6 of IInd schedule of the Act . After deducting 1/3 amount towards personal expenses, the figure comes to Rs.1167/-. After multiplying with12, the annual dependency comes to Rs.13,404/-. Considering the age of surviving spouse,which is more than 30 years the multiplier would be of 17 and as such this amount comes to Rs. 2,27,868/-, after adding a sum of Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses, the figure comes to Rs. 2,29,868/-. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case total compensation arrived at in this case at Rs.2,29,868/-. In round figure it comes to Rs. 2,30,000/-. MACP. No.306 of 2003 So far as MACP No. 306 of 2003 is concerned, it relates to injuries caused to claim petitioner Pyare Lal. According to him he got injuries in this accident. In this petition he has stated that his income is Rs. 5 000/- per month from the business of Fabricator. According to him his left leg ankle joint was fractured and got injuries on the other parts of the body. In oral evidence claim petitioner Pyare Lal stated that his leg was plastered. His treatment for about one and quarter month remained continue. 5 000/- per month from the business of Fabricator. According to him his left leg ankle joint was fractured and got injuries on the other parts of the body. In oral evidence claim petitioner Pyare Lal stated that his leg was plastered. His treatment for about one and quarter month remained continue. He incurred about Rs. 20,000-22,000/- in his treatment and a sum of Rs. 10000-12000 for the repair of scooter. He also stated that he was unable to do usual work for about 3 months and his income has been reduced. However, in the cross-examination he stated that his working place is in L.D.A. Colony and presently is earning Rs. 7000-8000 per month from doing the work of Fabricator. He categorically admitted that no injury report, no disability certificate, no bill or voucher, no admission and discharge certificate from the hospital and no proof of expenses are with him. In view of the non-availability of these documents this Court finds difficulty in awarding the just compensation. However, the claimant Pyare Lal denied the suggestions given to him in the cross-examination that he did not receive any injury or his treatment was not carried out or he has no shop. Taking all the facts into consideration and in absence of any document regarding injury, nature of injury, treatment bill and voucher, discharge and admission certificates, we are of the view that the claim petitioner Pyare Lal is not entitled to any compensation towards alleged expenses in getting his treatment done. However, considering the statement of the petitioner that he received injuries which appear to have been caused in this accident a sum of Rs. 5000/- may be awarded as compensation because his presence in the accident as scooterist cannot be doubted, for pain and sufferings. MACP. Nos. 307/2003 and 308 of 2003 So far as Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 307 of 2003 and 308 and 2003 are concerned, they have been filed on account of death of Prashant Kumar and Km. Babli aged about 2 and 3 years respectively . In view of the age of both the victims i.e. 2 and 3 years respectively, the income could not be determined. They were admittedly not students. Hence for determination of compensation notional income shall be taken into consideration on the basis of II Schedule of the Act, as has been held in R.K.Malik and others Vs. In view of the age of both the victims i.e. 2 and 3 years respectively, the income could not be determined. They were admittedly not students. Hence for determination of compensation notional income shall be taken into consideration on the basis of II Schedule of the Act, as has been held in R.K.Malik and others Vs. Kiran Pal and others AIR 2009 (S.C.) 2506 . While considering the compensation awarded for 29 children died in Bus accident, their Lordship observed that compensation awarded by the High Court on the basis of structure formula treating their income as Rs. 15,000/- per annum and deducting 1/3 amount towards personal expenses and applying appropriate multiplier as per II Schedule is not liable to be interfered with. The High Court after considering the future prospect of these students on the basis of facts that they belong to upper middle class and are studying in a reputed school of Delhi and also considering the performance of the students during their studies also awarded non pecuniary losses to the extent of 75,000/- per child. The Lordship confirmed the findings recorded by the High Court in this case. Considering the age of children in the case in hand they come within the category of zero to 15 years so, the multiplier of 15 would be applied. After deducting 1/3rd amount towards expenses incurred on deceased out of the notional income as per IInd schedule at Rs.15,000/- the dependency comes to Rs. 10,000/- per annum. After applying the multiplier of 15 the total compensation comes to Rs. 1,50,000/. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- is also required to be added therein towards funeral expenses. So far as non pecuniary losses towards future prospect is concerned, in our opinion could not be granted in this case because they were not school going children. Therefore, considering the observation made in R.K.Malik's case (Supra), we are of the view that non pecuniary losses towards future prospect would not be awarded in this case. As such in MACP Nos. 307 of 2003 and 308 of 2003 the compensation of Rs. 1,52,000/- each is awarded on account of death of children in both cases. Therefore, considering the observation made in R.K.Malik's case (Supra), we are of the view that non pecuniary losses towards future prospect would not be awarded in this case. As such in MACP Nos. 307 of 2003 and 308 of 2003 the compensation of Rs. 1,52,000/- each is awarded on account of death of children in both cases. In view of the findings recorded on issues 1,2,4, 5 and 6 we are of the view that out of the determined compensation 50% would be payable by the owner and insurer of the truck, who are jointly and severally liable for the compensation. Out of determined compensation 30% would be payable by the owner and insurer of the tempo. However, the insurer of Tempo, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. would be entitled to recover the same from the owner of the tempo i.e. Samresh Mishra (Respondent no. 3 in all the appeals). It is worth notice that in M.A.C.P. Nos. 305 of 2003, 307 of 2003 and 308 of 2003 Pyare Lal is himself claimant, so he will not be entitled to get compensation to the extent of 20%, i.e. liability held of him in this accident. Therefore, he at the most could get 80% of the determined compensation from other respondents as stated above. No other points was pressed or argued by the learned counsel for the appellants. In view of the above, FAFO No.497 of 2010, arising out of award delivered in M.A.C.P. No. 305/2003, FAFO No.498 of 2010, arising out of award delivered in M.A.C.P. No.306/2003, FAFO No499 of 2010 arising out of award delivered in M.A.C.P. No. 307/2003 and FAFO No.500/2010, arising out of award delivered in M.A.C.P. No.308 of 2003 deserve to be partly allowed. Consequently, FAFO No.497 of 2010 arising out of M.A.C.P. No. 305 of 2003, is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 6.1.2010 dismissing MACP No.305 of 2003 Pyare Lal Vs. Vinod Singh and others is set-a side. The above mentioned Motor Accident Claim Petition is partly allowed against respondents No. 1 to 4 jointly and severally for recovery of compensation of Rs. 1,84,000/- ( 2,30,000--46,000=1,84,000) with pendente lite and future simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- (50% of Rs.2,30,000) with accrued interest thereon would be payable first by the insurer of the Truck namely New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (opposite party/respondent no. 1,84,000/- ( 2,30,000--46,000=1,84,000) with pendente lite and future simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- (50% of Rs.2,30,000) with accrued interest thereon would be payable first by the insurer of the Truck namely New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (opposite party/respondent no. 2) and Rs. 69,000/- with accrued interest thereon by the insurer of tempo namely Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.(opposite party/respondent no. 4) with right to recover the amount from owner of the tempo Sri Samresh Mishra, respondent No.3 by moving the application before the Tribunal concerned as arrears of land revenue as is provided under section 174 of the Act. The amount to the extent of Rs. 46,000/- would not be payable to the petitioner because he was found negligent in causing accident to the extent of 20%. After receipt of the amount of the compensation as aforesaid a sum of Rs. 1,84,000/- will remain in Fix Deposit for a period of 5 years in Some Nationalised Bank and remaining amount of interest would be payable to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of order of this court. The amount shall be deposited in the aforesaid period before the Tribunal concerned and the Tribunal concerned shall pay the same to the petitioner within one month thereafter. The FAFO No.498 of 2010 arising out of M.A.C.P. No. 306 of 2003, is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 6.1.2010 dismissing the MACP No.306 of 2003 Pyare Lal Vs. Vinod Singh and others is set-aside. The above mentioned claim petition is partly allowed against respondents No. 1 to 4 jointly and severally for recovery of compensation of Rs. 4,000/- (5,000 - 1,000=4,000) with pendente lite and future simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 2,500/- (50% of Rs.5,000) with accrued interest thereon would be payable first by the insurer of the Truck namely New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (opposite party/respondent no. 2) and Rs. 1,500/- with accrued interest thereon by the insurer of tempo namely Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (opposite party/respondent no. 4) with right to recover the amount from owner of the tempo Sri Samresh Mishra, respondent No.3 by moving the application before the Tribunal concerned as arrears of land revenue as is provided under section 174 of the Act. 2) and Rs. 1,500/- with accrued interest thereon by the insurer of tempo namely Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (opposite party/respondent no. 4) with right to recover the amount from owner of the tempo Sri Samresh Mishra, respondent No.3 by moving the application before the Tribunal concerned as arrears of land revenue as is provided under section 174 of the Act. The remaining amount to the extent of Rs. 1,000/- would not be payable to the petitioner because he was found negligent in causing accident to the extent of 20% and scooter driver and owner has not been made party to the petition. The FAFO No.499 of 2010 arising out of M.A.C.P. No. 307 of 2003, is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 6.1.2010 dismissing the claim petition No.307 of 2003 Babulal and Another Vs. Vinod Singh and others is set-a side. The above mentioned claim petition is partly allowed against respondents No. 1 to 4 jointly and severally for recovery of compensation of Rs.1,21,600/-(1,52,000- 30,400=1,21,600) with pendente lite and future simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 76,000/- (50% of Rs.1,52,000) with accrued interest thereon would be payable first by the insurer of the Truck namely New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (opposite party/respondent no. 2) and Rs. 45,600/- with accrued interest thereon by the insurer of tempo namely Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.(opposite party/respondent no. 4)with right to recover the amount from owner of the Tempo Sri Samresh Mishra, respondent No.3 by moving the application before the tribunal concerned as arrears of land revenue as is provided under section 174 of the Act. The remaining amount to the extent of Rs. 30,400/- would not be payable to the petitioners because scooterist was found negligent in causing accident to the extent of 20%. After receipt of the amount of the compensation as aforesaid a sum of Rs. 1,21,600/- will remain in Fix Deposit for a period of 5 years in Some Nationalised Bank and remaining amount of interest would be payable to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of order of this court. The amount shall be deposited in the aforesaid period before the Tribunal concerned and the Tribunal concerned shall pay the same to the petitioner within one month thereafter. The FAFO No.500 of 2010 arising out of M.A.C.P. No. 308 of 2003, is partly allowed. The amount shall be deposited in the aforesaid period before the Tribunal concerned and the Tribunal concerned shall pay the same to the petitioner within one month thereafter. The FAFO No.500 of 2010 arising out of M.A.C.P. No. 308 of 2003, is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 6.1.2010 dismissing MACP No. 308 of 2003 Pyare Lal Vs. Vinod Singh and others is set aside. The above mentioned claim petition against respondents No. 1 to 4 jointly and severally for recovery of compensation of Rs.1,21,600/-(1,52,000- 30,400=1,21,600) with pendente lite and future simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 76,000/- (50% of Rs.1,52,000) with accrued interest thereon would be payable first by the insurer of the Truck namely New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (opposite party/respondent no. 2) and Rs. 45,600/- with accrued interest thereon by the insurer of Tempo; namely Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (opposite party/respondent no. 4) with right to recover the amount from owner of the tempo Sri Samresh Mishra, respondent No.3 by moving the application before the tribunal concerned as arrears of land revenue as is provided under section 174 of the Act. The remaining amount to the extent of Rs. 30,400/- would not be payable to the petitioner because he was found negligent in causing accident to the extent of 20%. After receipt of the amount of the compensation as aforesaid a sum of Rs. 1,21,600/- will remain in Fix Deposit for a period of 5 years in some Nationalised Bank and remaining amount of interest would be payable to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of order of this court. The amount shall be deposited in the aforesaid period before the Tribunal concerned and the Tribunal concerned shall pay the same to the petitioner within one month thereafter. There is no order as to costs _____________