B.P. Katakey, J.:- 1. These appeals are directed against the common award dated 20.1.2003 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup at Guwahati in MAC Case No. 693/1996 and MAC Case No. 694/1996, whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 3,07,000/- and Rs. 3,56,000/- have been awarded for the death of Nirmal Das and Dhiraj Nath, respectively. 2. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in MAC Appeal No. 91/2003 (arising out of MAC Case No. 693/1996) and the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in MAC Case No. 92/2003 (aris­ing out of MAC Case No. 694/1996) filed applications under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the death of Nirmal Das and Dhiraj Nath respectively, in a motor accident occurred on 23.9.1996 at about 6.30 P.M. involving the motor vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01A-0427 (Bus), of which Sri Prabitra Kanta Sarma was the owner, contending inter alia that while both the deceased were travelling by scooter bearing registration No. AS-01D-2186, the aforesaid bus driven in a rash and negligent manner, knocked the scooter, as a result of which both Dhiraj and Nirmal sus­tained injuries on their person and eventually died. It has also been contended that on the basis of the information received Boko PS case No. 105/1996 registered under Section 279/304A/427 IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the bus. 3. The claim of the claimants has been contested by the Insurance Company, the in­surer of the bus, denying the claim and put­ting the claimants to the strictest proof thereof. It has also been contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of Dhiraj Nath, who drove the scooter, apart from the plea that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid license. The New India Assurance Company, who was also a party to the aforesaid proceeding and who is the insurer in respect of the scooter, filed written statement contending inter alia that since there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the scooter no award can be passed against the owner of the scooter, consequently, New India Assurance Company cannot be made liable for satisfying the award. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, however, did not contest the proceedings. 4. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, however, did not contest the proceedings. 4. The claimants in support of their claim have examined three witnesses, namely, Sri Jibeswar Das (Witness No. 1), Smti Pekhan Bala Das (witness No. 2) and Sri Manik Sinha (witness No.3). Jibeswar Das and Manik Sinha were witnesses to the occurrence. These witnesses were cross examined by the Insurance Company, who, however, did not lead any evidence in support of their conten­tion in the written statement. 5. The learned Member upon apprecia­tion of the evidence on record has passed the award, as noticed above, by holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. the bus, that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving license at the relevant point of time and that there was no contributory neg­ligence on the part of Dhiraj, who drove the scooter. The insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. the bus, the appellant herein, has been directed to satisfy the award there being no dispute relation to the contract of insurance between the owner of the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company. Hence the present appeal. 6. I have heard Mr. SK Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in both the appeals, Mr. Das, learned counsel ap­pearing for the claimants and Mr. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent New India Assurance Company in both the appeals. 7. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel appear­ing for the appellant, referring to the deposi­tion of the witnesses examined, has submit­ted that since there was contributory negli­gence on the part of the Dhiraj, who drove the scooter, the learned Member ought not to have awarded the compensation against the owner of the bus only and directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the same and instead ought to have apportioned the amount of compensation between both the insurance companies. It has also been submitted that as it appears from the record that the accident occurred due to head on collusion of the two motor vehicles, it is apparent that the deceased Dhiraj Nath has also contributed to some extent to the accident. It has also been submitted that as it appears from the record that the accident occurred due to head on collusion of the two motor vehicles, it is apparent that the deceased Dhiraj Nath has also contributed to some extent to the accident. The learned counsel further submits that with regard to MAC Ap­peal No. 91/2003, since there was negligence on the part of Dhiraj, who drove the scooter and in respect of which Nirmal was the pil­lion rider, the New India Assurance Company is also liable to pay 50% of the compensa­tion, the risk of the owner of the scooter be­ing insured with New India Assurance Com­pany. 8. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, referring to the deposition of the witnesses examined and also the charge sheet, which has been filed, proved and marked as Ext. 5, has submitted that it is ap­parent therefrom that Dhiraj Nath, who drove the scooter was not at all negligent and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. the bus and hence there cannot be any deduction to­wards contributory negligence, thereby no negligence on the part of Dhiraj. The learned counsel referring to the recent judgment in Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., reported in (2013) 3 TAC 697 (SC), has sub­mitted that the amount of compensation awarded in both the cases is required to be enhanced as though the Tribunal was required to assess the compensation by making addi­tion of 50% of the actual income of the de­ceased towards the future enhancement of the income, the deceased being below the age of 30 years, the same has not been done. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that while rejecting the contention raised by the appel­lant, the amount of compensation may be enhanced, as it is the court's duty to award just compensation under the provision of the aforesaid Act. 9. The learned counsel appearing for Na­tional Insurance Company supporting the ar­guments advanced by Mr. Das, learned coun­sel appearing for the claimants, have also sub­mitted that it is apparent from the materials available on record, more particularly the evi­dence of witness Nos. 1 and 3 and also the charge sheet (Ext. 9. The learned counsel appearing for Na­tional Insurance Company supporting the ar­guments advanced by Mr. Das, learned coun­sel appearing for the claimants, have also sub­mitted that it is apparent from the materials available on record, more particularly the evi­dence of witness Nos. 1 and 3 and also the charge sheet (Ext. 5) that Dhiraj Nath who drove the scooter was not at all negligent and the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the offending bus and hence there cannot be any deduction or the New India Assurance Company cannot be made liable to satisfy the award, which insurance com­pany is the insurer in respect of the scooter. It has also been submitted that it is apparent from the finding recorded by the learned Member as well as the evidence adduced that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid license. 10. I have considered the submissions advance by the learned counsel for the part­ies. I have also perused the award passed by the learned Member apart from the evi­dence, both oral and documentary, adduced before the Tribunal. 11. In the case in hand, the factum of ac­cident, the death of Dhiraj Nath and Nirmal Das in such accident, their monthly income, which was found to be Rs. 3,000/-, their age being 27 and 22 years, respectively and in­surance coverage in respect of the bus as well is the scooter being not in dispute need not be gone into in the present appeals. 12. As noticed above, it is the contention of the appellants Insurance Company that Dhiraj Nath who drove the scooter having contributed to the accident there ought to have been deduction of certain percentage towards the contributory negligence which, however, has been denied by the respondents. 13. To appreciate the said contention I have also perused the evidence. It is appar­ent from the deposition of the witness No. 1 and witness No. 3 that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of AS-01A-0427, (bus), who drove the said vehicle in a very high speed and in a negligent manner. The driver of the said vehicle i.e. the bus was also charge sheeted under Section 279/304A/427 IPC. The driver of the said vehicle i.e. the bus was also charge sheeted under Section 279/304A/427 IPC. These witnesses though were thoroughly cross examined by the ap­pellant Insurance Company they, however, could not be discredited in their deposition that the accident occurred due to negligent driving by the driver of the bus. There is no evidence on record even to suggest that Dhiraj Nath who drove the scooter had contributed to the accident. The Insurance Company though pleaded contributory negligence did not lead any evidence. Hence the contention of the Insurance Company that Dhiraj Nath had contributed to the accident cannot be accepted. 14. Section 168 of the 1988 Act cast a duty on the Court to hold an enquiry into the claim and to determine the award of com­pensation which appears to be just. 15. In an application filed for compensa­tion, the court is, therefore, required to as­certain the just compensation payable de­pending upon the evidence adduced by the parties. The Court, therefore, can pass the award for compensation more than what has been claimed by the claimant in the claim ap­plication. The court's duty being to award just compensation, if the appellate court finds that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just it can enhance the same and award the just compensation, even in an appeal preferred by the owner or the insurer and even in the absence of any cross appeal or cross objection by the claimants. Refer­ence in this regard may be made of the ob­servation of the Apex Court in Rajesh (su­pra). 16. In the instant case, there is no dispute relating to the age of the victims, who were 27 (Dhiraj) and 22 (Nirmal). There is no dis­pute relating to the monthly income of the both the deceased which was found to be Rs. 3000/-. MAC case No. 693/1996 has been filed by five claimants, who are all dependants on the income of the deceased namely Nirmal. MAC Case No. 694/1996 has been filed by three claimants, who are the dependants on the in­come of the deceased, namely, Dhiraj. 17. 3000/-. MAC case No. 693/1996 has been filed by five claimants, who are all dependants on the income of the deceased namely Nirmal. MAC Case No. 694/1996 has been filed by three claimants, who are the dependants on the in­come of the deceased, namely, Dhiraj. 17. The Apex Court in Rajesh (supra) has held that even in case of self employed or person with fixed wage there must be an ad­ditional to the actual income of the deceased while computing the future prospect and in these cases as the deceased were below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased. The rel­evant portion of Para 11 is reproduced below:- "11. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi's case (supra) actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and to make it applicable also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always, it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while com­puting future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after pay­ing the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years." 18. In view of the aforesaid pro­nouncement of the Apex Court, and since both the deceased were below 40 years 50% i.e. Rs. 1500 is to be added to the monthly income of the deceased, which was found to be Rs. 3000/-, for the purpose of computing the fu­ture prospect. The monthly income of both the deceased therefore is to be taken as Rs. 4500/-. 19. In MAC case No. 693/1996 the de­ceased being a bachelor 50% from the monthly income of the deceased is to be de­ducted towards his personal expenses and hence the loss of dependency in the said case is Rs. 2250/-. The annual loss of dependency thus comes to Rs. 27,000/- which is to be multiplied by appropriate multiplier i.e. 17, by following the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Sarala Verma & Ors. Vs. 2250/-. The annual loss of dependency thus comes to Rs. 27,000/- which is to be multiplied by appropriate multiplier i.e. 17, by following the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Sarala Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The amount of compen­sation to which the claimants in MAC Case No.693/1996 are entitled to, therefore, comes to Rs. 4,59,000, to which Rs. 10,000/- is added for funeral expense. Thus the total amount of compensation to which the claim­ants are entitled is Rs. 4,69,000/-, which will carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. 20. In MAC Case No, 694/1996 one of the claimants being the wife of the deceased and all the claimants being dependants on the income of the deceased, 1/3 i.e. Rs. 1500/-, from the monthly income, i.e., Rs. 4,500/-, is to be deducted. The monthly loss of depen­dency therefore conies to Rs. 3000/- and annual loss of income conies to Rs. 36,000/-which is to be multiplied by appropriate mul­tiplier 17. The claimants would, therefore, be entitled to Rs. 6,12,000/- to which Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses are to be added. Hence the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 6,32,000/-, which amount will carry interest at the 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 21. There being no dispute relating to the contract of Insurance between the appellant and the owner of the offending vehicle (bus), the appellant Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award by depositing the same before the Tribunal within 45 days from to­day, less the amount, if any, already depos­ited. On such deposit amounts shall be re­leased in favour of the claimants by account payee cheques, in equal proportion and on being identified to the satisfaction of the learned member. 22. The award passed by the Tribunal stands accordingly modified. 23. The appeals stand dismissed with cost of Rs. 5000/- in each appeals. 24. The Registry is directed to refund Rs. 20,000/-, out of the statutory deposit, made in each of the appeals to the appellant. The cost to be realized shall be credited in the account of the High Court Mediation Centre for proper utilization. 25. The Registry is directed to send down the records forthwith.