JUDGMENT 1. The appeal is against the Judgment and award dated 27.06.2003 passed by the Motor accident Tribunal, Nagpur in claim Petition no. 532 of 2002 on its file whereby the Tribunal was pleased to grant compensation in the sum of Rs.8,27,600/-. 2. The facts briefly stated by the claimants are:- Chandu Pundalik Adagale aged about 26 years a primary teacher by profession, resident of village Bhone Taluka Sangrampur, deceased was travelling by the Jeep bearing registration no. MH-20-E 9585 to Shegaon. Chandu met with fatal accident after the Jeep was smashed and turned turtle after the ST Bus bearing registration No. MH-12/R/1893 proceeding from Khamgaon to Shegaon gave dash to the Jeep. The respondents had claimed compensation in the sum of Rs.800,000/- @ 12% interest from the date of the claim application. The Tribunal below held the Driver of the ST Bus responsible for causing the accident rashly and negligently and granted compensation to the dependents of the deceased Chandu Adagale in the sum of Rs.8, 27,000/-payable jointly and severally by the respondent no 1 and 2 @ 9% interest from the date of the claim application. 3. On behalf of the Appellant it is argued that the S.T Bus was found on the middle of the Road and therefore the Driver of the Bus could not have been held responsible for alleged negligence for the accident. According to the learned Advocate for the Appellant, the inference drawn by the Tribunal was perverse and was result of non-application of mind. It is argued that the Jeep had given dash to the Bus from rear side wheel of the Driver side of the Bus and wheels of the conductor side of the Bus were on the left side of the Road. It is further submitted that the driver, owner and the insurer of the Jeep were not impleaded as parties though they were necessary parties to the claim Petition. The Tribunal ought to have relied upon the evidence of the Driver of the S T Bus that it was the Jeep which gave dash to the Bus and not the vice versa, because no any eye witness was examined on behalf of the respondent . Spot Panchanama revealed that the road was 15 feet wide with slope of 5 feet on either side hence ST Bus driver could not have been held responsible for the road accident. Spot Panchanama revealed that the road was 15 feet wide with slope of 5 feet on either side hence ST Bus driver could not have been held responsible for the road accident. The amount of compensation granted was exorbitant and erroneous. 4. Learned Advocate for the respondent claimant submitted in support of the impugned Judgment that the Tribunal had considered the entire evidence on the record to arrive at just conclusions according to law . It is submitted that the interested evidence of the Bus driver, deposing to save his own skin was rightly disbelieved as contrary to documentary evidence on the record. He was driving the Bus negligently coming from Shegaon to Khamgaon, and the Bus was found on the middle of the road and not on the left side of the Road. 5. I have heard submissions and perused the documentary evidence on the record. There is no independent eye witness to depose as to how the incident had actually occurred. But we have FIR (Ex 20) indicating that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the Bus driver .The Bus gave dash to the Jeep. The Jeep was entangled near the right rear wheel of the Bus. One of the occupants of the Jeep died while other 8 persons including the driver were injured .Bus driver denied this fact which renders his testimony doubtful and credit less. Driver of the Bus was proceeding from Shegaon to Khamgaon while Jeep was going towards Shegaon. Professional S.T. Bus driver was expected to slowdown and avoid the accident if he had seen the jeep from long distance coming from opposite side in a zigzag manner as claimed by him in his testimony. The Jeep would not have been heavily damaged in the accident as mentioned in the Spot Panchanama (Ex 22) without a forceful dash. The width of the Road was 15 feet with five feet on either side. The Bus was being plied in the Middle and not on left side of the Road. The observations made in the spot Panchanama negatived the interested version of the driver of the Bus that he was driving at the speed of 30 to 40 K.M per hour. Because the Bus was found at the middle of the road and not on the left side of the Road, Inquest Panchnama (Ex 23). The observations made in the spot Panchanama negatived the interested version of the driver of the Bus that he was driving at the speed of 30 to 40 K.M per hour. Because the Bus was found at the middle of the road and not on the left side of the Road, Inquest Panchnama (Ex 23). The version of the Bus driver that he was trying digging his Bus on the left side of the Road is not acceptable as contrary to the evidence on the record. The Bus driver had shown the tendency to deny the fact that there were nine persons in the Jeep including the driver of the Jeep as mentioned in FIR although One of them was dead and seven persons were injured. As against this no any injury was caused to the driver of the Bus and to any of the Passengers from inside the Bus. All these materials and circumstances go to show prima facie that there was no negligence on the part of the Jeep driver, owner and insurer thereof so as to require the claimant to implead them unnecessarily in the claim Petition. In the present case, The S.T. Bus had dashed against the Jeep very violently as a result of which it got badly smashed and Chandu, deceased passengers died on the spot while others in the Jeep got injured. The jeep was heavily damaged in the accident, indicating excessive speed of the Bus. This is a case in which the accident speaks for itself and the principle of res ipsaloquitur would apply with full force. Such a violent dash against the Jeep could not have been possible had not the bus being driven very rashly and negligently. The inference raised by the Tribunal against the driver of the S.T. Bus was well founded. 6. Learned advocate for the Appellant made reference to the ruling in the Oriental Insurance Company Vs Meena Variyal reported in (2007) 5 SCC 428 to submit that the contract of insurance is contract of indemnity between the insurance company and the insured. When the insured Motor vehicle meets with an accident while driven by the employee of the insured, primary liability is of the driver and the owner of the vehicle becomes vicariously liable. Insurer would pay for such vicarious liability of the owner pursuant to the insurance Contract. When the insured Motor vehicle meets with an accident while driven by the employee of the insured, primary liability is of the driver and the owner of the vehicle becomes vicariously liable. Insurer would pay for such vicarious liability of the owner pursuant to the insurance Contract. Third party for whose benefit the insurance contract was entered in to is required to establish under section 166 of the Motor vehicle Act that the driver was negligent to drive the vehicle resulting in the motor vehicle accident and the owner of the offending motor vehicle is vicariously liable and that the insurance company is bound to indemnify the owner. Learned Advocate Shri Karpe for the respondent submitted with reference to the ruling that the employees of the insured are not normally covered under the contract of insurance, but Shri Carpe invited my attention to the ruling in T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvaran and others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 748 in para 6 it is observed thus “6. 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrong doer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. ….” Thus each tort feasor is answerable for to pay the compensation. While considering the question as whether the claim application would suffer from the defect of the non-joinder of necessary parties when the claimants did not implead the owner, driver and the insurer of the other vehicle damaged in the road accident, the Apex Court in the ruling in Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation Vs Shardabai and others reported in 1997 ACJ 649, has made the legal position clear. It made reference to the observations in the Law of Torts 22nd Edition 1992 ,by Justice G.P. Singh with approval as under “In a suit for 'composite negligence' the plaintiff is not bound to a strict analysis of the proximate or immediate cause of the event to find out whom he can sue. Subject to the rules as to remoteness of damage, he is entitled to sue all or any of the negligent persons and it is no concern of his whether there is any duty of contribution or indemnity as between those persons, though in any case he cannot recover on the whole more than his whole damage. He has a right to recover the full amount of damages from any of the defendants. In assessing damages against joint tort feasors one set of damages will be fixed and they must be assessed according to the aggregate amount of injury resulting from the common act. The damages cannot be apportioned so as to award one sum against one defendant and another against the other defendant, though they may have been guilty in unequal degree. If two omnibuses are racing and one of them runs over a man who is crossing the road and has no time to get out of the way, the injured person has a remedy against the proprietor of either omnibus. Those who are sued cannot insist on having the others joined as defendants. The mere omission to sue some of them will not disentitle the plaintiff from claiming full relief against those who are used. ” The law is well settled, in an accident involving two or more vehicles, where a third party (other than the drivers and/or owners of the vehicles involved) claims damages for loss or injuries, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. The joint tortfeasors may have action of apportionment of the blame between them inter se for to enforce contribution, if they are so advised .They cannot insist that they ought to have been sued or proceeded against jointly by the claimant for to demand the compensation. The joint tortfeasors may have action of apportionment of the blame between them inter se for to enforce contribution, if they are so advised .They cannot insist that they ought to have been sued or proceeded against jointly by the claimant for to demand the compensation. Thus in the claim Petition the wrong doers collectively or joint tort feasors may be proper but not necessary parties to decide the claim for just and fair compensation payable for the motor vehicle accident caused. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, contentions by the Learned Advocate for the Appellant cannot be accepted as there was no any reason to believe that the Jeep driver was also rash and negligent to cause the accident. The Tribunal was right to hold the driver of the Bus responsible for the accident caused to the Jeep and the claimants representing the deceased Chandu were entitled to get the compensation. One more contention is that the Jeep was used commercially and hence the appellants are not responsible to pay the compensation. This contention remained baseless as it was never substantiated by any material on the record. The Petitioners could establish their claim that the deceased Chandu Pundalik Adagale died in Motor accident on 11.04.2002 caused by the rash and negligent driving of the S. T .Bus MH-12-R 1893 smashing the Jeep no MH-20-E 9585. I am also satisfied upon perusal of the record and proceedings that the driver, owner and insurer of the Jeep which was the victim vehicle, were neither proper nor were necessary parties to the Claim petition in the facts and circumstances of the case after making reference to the ruling in Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs Meena Variyal & others (2007) 5 SCC 428 the Apex Court made reference Minu Mehta’s case 1977 2 SCC 441 (Para 37) "We conclude by stating that the view of the learned Judges of the High Court has no support in law and hold that proof of negligence is necessary before the owner or the insurance company could be held to be liable for the payment of compensation in a motor accident claim case." 7. The question then arise about the quantum of the compensation payable to the dependant-claimant .It is in evidence (vide Waman Rajurkar, Block Education officer at Ex 27) that Chandu who was aged 27 years at the time of his death (deceased in this case ) and was an Asst. primary teacher posted at primary School, Bhone earning salary of 7142 /per month with a school under the Control of Panchayat Samiti, Sangrampur, since the year 1998. Salary Certificate is at Ex 28. Loss of dependency computed on the basis of the monthly income of the deceased and the choice of multiplier 18 would get attracted as the victim was of the age group of 26 to 30 years. But the Tribunal is also bound to consider the age group of the dependants-claimant parents were stated in the age group of 45 to 50 years, number of dependants stated four including brother aged 24 years and unmarried sister aged 21 years old. 8. In the leading ruling in Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121, Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the essential guidelines settled by judicial precedents so as to arrive at the uniform figures of awards for compensation in similar set of facts .It is now settled legal position that Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered by the claimant/s as a result of the motor accident which is actionable wrong. It is wrong which is compensatable in terms of money, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to the award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit for the claimants at the cost of public money with insurers. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have single formulae with mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have single formulae with mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, and the formulae/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of judicial adjudication to arrive at just compensation. Thus just compensation ought to be computed in view of the aforesaid guidelines as laid down in the ruling of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Road transport Corpn. (2009) 6 SCC 121. 9. Learned advocate for the Appellant contended that the award is on higher side. I cannot agree. Coming to the application of the aforesaid principle to the present case, here the Tribunal had determined the income of the deceased at Rs.7142 /which was the salary per month drawn by the deceased. Minus the professional Tax Rs.175/- thus there was monthly loss of dependency in the sum of Rs.6967/- Thus annual loss of dependency was computed as Rs.83604/-. One third deduction towards personal expenses in the sum of Rs.27,868/-. The multiplier of 18 was applied considering the age of the deceased was 27 years. Thus the compensation was arrived at Rs.10,03248/- from which the 20% amount was deducted for the accelerated payment in view of the ruling in Sakhribai Hasan Ali Vs. Dinesh kumar Rupchand 1997 ACJ 95, thus the sum of compensation was arrived at Rs.8,02590/- which was rounded off to Rs.8,02,600/-. In my opinion an increase @ 30% on account of future prospects could have been added thereto but the Tribunal could not for want of the relevant essential evidence as to the future prospects of the deceased , the compensation is worked out to the extent of only Rs.8,02,600/-( Set formulae was 7142 x12x18 – 1/3). then granting a sum of at least Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses, loss of love and affection , loss of estate etc if calculated would make the award of total compensation of Rs.8,22,600/- on lesser side in monetary terms and not on higher side as vehemently argued on behalf of the appellant. then granting a sum of at least Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses, loss of love and affection , loss of estate etc if calculated would make the award of total compensation of Rs.8,22,600/- on lesser side in monetary terms and not on higher side as vehemently argued on behalf of the appellant. In the absence of appeal or cross objection in this regard I feel there would be no scope for enhancement in the sum awarded as compensation. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,27,600/- as compensation inclusive of no fault liability. It needs no interference. Accordingly, the compensation shall be paid by the respondents/Insurance Company to the appellants along with just interest @ 9%, to be calculated from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. The amount deposited be paid to the claimant-respondent and amount if already withdrawn be adjusted accordingly. The excess amount deposited if any be refunded to the depositor. The award be executed as directed by the Learned Member of the Tribunal accordingly. 10. In the result the Appeal is dismissed with costs. R & P be sent back to the Tribunal for to do the needful execution of the award accordingly.