Judgment : 1. The appeal is against the Judgment and award dated 31-07-2006 passed by the Motor accident Tribunal, Yavatmal in claim Petition No. 488 of 1998 on its file whereby the Tribunal was pleased to grant compensation in the sum of Rs 23,24,000/-inclusive of amount of no fault liability together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application. 2. The facts briefly stated by the claimants are:-On 20.6.1998, a mechanical engineer working with the Manganese Ore (India) Limited as Senior Manager (Mechanical) was driving Maruti Van bearing R/No. MP-22-B/7222 from the side of Nagpur towards Wardha. While the Maruti Van was near village Jangalpur Shivar, ST Bus bearing R/No. MH-31-8209 came from opposite side in a high and abnormal speed. The Bus attempted to overtake bullock cart which was in front of the bus. Driver of the bus could not control and gave dash to Maruti Van which Vijaykumar was driving as a result of which front side of Maruti Van was badly damaged and it veered around. Vijaykumar sustained serious injuries and he died at the spot. After giving dash, the Bus went on right side of the road and stopped at about 75-80 feet away from the spot of accident. 3. At the time of his death, Vijaykumar was aged about 37 years and only bread-earner for his family. Claimants are mother, widow and daughter. Vijaykumar was getting salary of Rs. 13,485/- per month. The Tribunal held that Vijaykumar succumbed to injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of S. T. Bus in question and granted compensation of Rs. 23,24,000/- to the claimants, as aforesaid. 4. 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. Learned counsel for appellant contends that the amount of award was excessive and that the Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that deceased while he was driving Maruti Van was blameworthy for rash and negligent driving and, therefore, 50% compensation ought to have been disallowed. It is also submitted that the Tribunal ought to have deducted amount of 50% towards personal or self expenses. It is also submitted that the Tribunal ought to have deducted amount of 50% towards personal or self expenses. It is contended that it is a case of contributory negligence on the part of driver on Maruti Van as well as Bus driver and drivers of both the vehicles were responsible for the accident. 5. 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 then 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. 6. Learned Advocate for the respondents submitted with reference to the ruling that the employees of the insured are not normally covered under the contract of insurance, but the learned counsel 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 wrong-doers. 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 wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong-doer separately. ….” Thus each tort feasor is answerable for to pay the compensation. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong-doer separately. ….” Thus each tort feasor is answerable for to pay the compensation. 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 sued. ” The law is well settled. 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 sued. ” 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. Thus in the claim Petition the wrong doers collectively or joint tortfeasors may be proper but not necessary parties to decide the claim for just and fair compensation payable for the motor vehicle accident caused. The facts and circumstances of the present case are distinguishable, contentions by the Learned Advocate for the Appellant cannot be accepted as there was no any sound reason to believe that the Maruti Van driver was also rash and negligent to cause the motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal was right to hold that the driver of the ST Bus responsible for rash and negligent driving and causing the accident caused to the Maruti Van and the claimants representing the deceased Vijaykumar were entitled to get the compensation. The petitioners could satisfactorily establish their claim that the deceased Vijaykumar died in motor accident on 20.6.1998 caused by the rash and negligent driving of the S. T .Bus MH318209. 7. 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. 7. 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 exact 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 SarlaVerma Vs. Delhi Road transport Corpn. (2009) 6 SCC 121. 8. Learned advocate for the Appellant contended that the award is on higher side. I cannot agree. It is in evidence that deceased Vijaykumar was Senior Manager (Mechanical) with MOIL, getting gross salary of Rs. 13,485/-in the month of May 1988. Vijaykumar died at the young age of 37 years and could have retired after completing the age of 60 years. He could have earned increase in his salary to the tune of Rs. 30,00035,000 per month as he had studied and completed his B. E. (Mechanical) and was beneficially employed in MOIL. 13,485/-in the month of May 1988. Vijaykumar died at the young age of 37 years and could have retired after completing the age of 60 years. He could have earned increase in his salary to the tune of Rs. 30,00035,000 per month as he had studied and completed his B. E. (Mechanical) and was beneficially employed in MOIL. Thus, considering the situation in which claimants were left due to sudden demise of Vijaykumar in a motor vehicle road accident and applying the ratio laid down in SarlaVerma’s case, conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal on this aspect is proper. The Tribunal held after working out gross income at Rs. 40,5000/-, that average income available to the deceased and his family would be Rs. 20,250/-per month. The Tribunal then calculated loss of monthly dependency. Even though it is admitted position on record that widow of late Vijaykumar was in employment and was getting salary of Rs. 9100/- and pension of Rs. 2100/- per month, in the light of ratio laid down in ONGC v. Vina Kapur and ors reported in 1997, ACJ 1430 , the Tribunal has rightly held that the income derived from compassionate employment cannot be taken into account while considering the issue of dependency. The Tribunal then took into account deductions from salary and net pay of Rs. 8363/- of deceased Vijaykumar and determined the monthly dependency of claimants @ Rs. 12,000/-(annually calculated at Rs. 1,44,000/-). Since the deceased was admittedly between the age group of 35-40 years, multiplier of “16” has been rightly applied by the learned Tribunal. The total loss of dependency at Rs. 23,04,000/- appear just and fairly calculated by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded consortium at Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 10,000/- for loss of love and affection as also interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. 9. In my considered opinion, the impugned judgment and award needs no interference and appeal deserves to be dismissed. 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.