JUDGMENT Mr. Navita Singh, J.:- These appeals have been filed against the award dated 31.7.1995, vide which four petitions relating to the same accident were decided by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal), Sonepat. Since there is one award for all four petitions, all the above appeals are also being disposed of by this single judgment. In MACT No.90 of 1991, the claimants were Bisso Devi and others and the claim was presented on account of death of Rattan Singh in the said accident. In the other three petitions, i.e. MACT Nos.87, 88 and 89 of 1991, compensation was claimed by Ashok Kumar, Raj Kumar and Anil Kumar respectively for injuries sustained by them in that very accident. 2. The facts, put briefly, are that on 22.1.1991, a head-on collision took place between Bus No.HYU-6691 belonging to Haryana Roadways and Truck No.HRD-6715 belonging to one Om Parkash, on G.T. Road in the area of Village Pipli Khera. The drivers of both the vehicles died. Anil Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Raj Kumar received injuries. All the three injured persons were travelling in the bus for going from Delhi to Samalkha. The bus was being driven by Rattan Singh. The truck, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Harbans Lal, came towards the wrong side of the road and rammed into the bus. All the injured persons were taken to Civil Hospital, Sonepat. However, Rattan Singh, driver of the bus, succumbed to his injuries on the way. A case was registered by the police on the statement of Chaman Lal, conductor of the bus. All the injured persons were referred to Delhi from Civil Hospital, Sonepat. 3. Om Parkash, owner of the truck, denied that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by deceased Harbans Lal and also disclosed that the truck was insured with the present appellant. The National Insurance Company, i.e. the appellant, admitted that the truck was insured with it, but pleaded that the deceased driver was not driving the truck under a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The other respondents, i.e. State of Haryana and General Manager of Haryana Roadways, Faridabad, pleaded jointly that the bus was also insured with the same Insurance Company. 4. The following consolidated issues were framed by the Tribunal: - 1. The other respondents, i.e. State of Haryana and General Manager of Haryana Roadways, Faridabad, pleaded jointly that the bus was also insured with the same Insurance Company. 4. The following consolidated issues were framed by the Tribunal: - 1. Whether the accident in dispute was the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of Harbans Singh alias Harbans Lal driver of truck bearing registration No.HRD-6715 or Rattan Singh driver of bus bearing registration No.HYU-6691 on 22.1.1991 in the area of village Pipli Khera which caused the death of Rattan Singh bus driver, injuries to Anil Kumar, Raj Kumar and Ashok Kumar? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner/petitioners is/are entitled for compensation and if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether Harbans Lal driver of truck or Rattan Singh driver of bus were not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, if so to what effect? OPD 4. Whether truck No.HRD-6715 was not being plied under a valid insurance policy? OPR 5. What is the effect of the fact that Harbans Lal driver of the truck was dead on the date of filing the claim petition? OPR 6. Relief. 5. After thrashing the evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the legal representatives of Rattan Singh were entitled to receive an amount of Rs.2,68,800/-, which included an amount of Rs.96,000/- towards future prospects, as the Tribunal held that the deceased was to earn till the age of 58 years and would also have got pension. The injured persons namely Ashok Kumar and Raj Kumar were granted Rs.65,000/- each whereas injured Anil Kumar was granted a compensation of Rs.1,19,000/-. The Insurance Company and owner of the truck were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount. 6. In FAO No.2354 of 1995 filed by the Insurance Company against the legal representatives of deceased Rattan Singh and the owner of turck No.HRD-6715, learned counsel for the appellant, first of all, argued that in a separate petition filed relating to the same accident, an award had been passed holding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Rattan Singh deceased, who was driving the Haryana Roadways bus at the relevant time. MACT No.29 of 1991 Smt. Krishna Devi widow of Harbans Lal (driver of the truck) and others Vs. MACT No.29 of 1991 Smt. Krishna Devi widow of Harbans Lal (driver of the truck) and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, culminated into the said award dated 23.1.1993. Ex. R2, copy of the award, was tendered in evidence in the cases before the Tribunal by the respondents concerned. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in holding that the said award had no bearing in the cases under consideration as the claimants before the Tribunal were not parties in that case. It was held that the principle of resjudicata did not apply. Other reasons were also given. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that once it was held by a Tribunal with regard to the same accident that it was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, then there would be an anomaly in so much as it was held in the petitions relating to the present appeals that the driver of the truck was negligent. She also argued that there was head-on collision and in such cases both the drivers are to be taken as rash and negligent and the liability of the Insurance Company should have been to the extent of 50%. However, when pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that the Insurance Company of the bus and of the truck is the same, learned counsel for the appellant agreed that it will be a fuitile exercise to go into the aspect argued by her regarding fastening the liability because whoever of the drivers was negligent or whether both of them were negligent, ultimately it is the appellant who has to pay the compensation. Nothing further was, therefore, urged in this regard by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, stated that she would assail the award only with regard to the quantum. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in FAO No.2354 of 1995, the amount of Rs.96,000/- granted on account of loss of future income was wrongly awarded by the Tribunal because even if the principles of awarding compensation as held in Sarla Verma’s case (reported as Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in FAO No.2354 of 1995, the amount of Rs.96,000/- granted on account of loss of future income was wrongly awarded by the Tribunal because even if the principles of awarding compensation as held in Sarla Verma’s case (reported as Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107] : 2009 (6) SCC 121 ) are applied, nothing is to be granted towards future prospects if the deceased was above 50 years in age. She also argued that at that time there was no law regarding grant of any compensation on account of future prospects and that even if the Tribunal had exercised its discretion in that regard, the same was not exercised judiciously. The multiplier was applied twice, i.e. both on actual and notional future income. 9. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5, i.e. the legal representatives of the deceased, argued that the principles enunciated in Sarla Verma (Supra) are to be adverted to and multiplier of 13 is liable to be applied and also future aspects are to be seen. He also stated that the age of the deceased was given as 50 years and not above 50 years. If the learned counsel for the said respondents places reliance on Sarla Verma for the purpose of multiplier, he cannot be oblivious to the fact that in the same case it was held that nothing was to be awarded towards future prospects if the person concerned is held to be 50 years in age at the relevant time. We have no exact proof of the age of the deceased. The deceased was a Government employee being driver with Haryana Roadways but the claimants did not bother to bring his date of birth on record. His age was given as 50 years at the time of accident when his widow entered into witness box and that would mean that he had completed 50 years. Learned counsel for the claimants, therefore, cannot approbate and reprobate. It is, therefore, held that the Tribunal did not exercise the discretion judiciously in awarding an amount of Rs.96,000/- towards future prospects. The other amount of Rs.1,72,000/- was rightly arrived at. It may be noted here that at the time of notice in the appeal, recovery beyond the amount of Rs.1,72,000/- was stayed. It is, therefore, held that the Tribunal did not exercise the discretion judiciously in awarding an amount of Rs.96,000/- towards future prospects. The other amount of Rs.1,72,000/- was rightly arrived at. It may be noted here that at the time of notice in the appeal, recovery beyond the amount of Rs.1,72,000/- was stayed. Learned counsel for the appellant rightly argued that the multiplier beyond 8 is not required to be applied for enhancement of compensation because no appeal was filed by the claimants for enhancement and they also did not bother to file any cross objections to this appeal. 10. Nothing was urged on behalf of learned counsel for respondent No.7 (owner of the truck) as the main contest is between the appellant and respondents No.1 to 5. 11. It is, therefore, held that nothing is liable to be paid by the appellant beyond Rs.1,72,000/- with interest to the claimants in FAO No.2354 of 1995. 12. So far as the injured persons are concerned, learned counsel for the appellant referred to only to the quantum and stated that exaggerated amount was awarded for pain and suffering. She stated that an amount of Rs.40,000/- was given to injured Ashok Kumar and also to injured Raj Kumar under that head and an amount of Rs.60,000/- for pain and suffering was awarded to Anil Kumar. She contended that the amount awarded under other heads was reasonable but that awarded for pain and suffering was on higher side. 13. Medical evidence would be the best guide for looking into this aspect. Dr. Nagesh Jain appeared before the Tribunal and stated that Ashok Kumar had fractures in his mandible and also had traction injury in the spine. There was head injury as well. Complicated procedures had to be done regarding the fracture in the mandible bone. Also the injured had lost sensation in his right forearm on account of the injuries. In such an event, it is understandable that the injured must have undergone considerable pain and must have suffered a lot, for which Rs.40,000/- is not exaggerated amount. 14. In the case of Raj Kumar also, Dr. Nagesh Jain appeared in the witness box and stated that the said person had also multiple fractures in the mandible bone and there was dislocation of the left big toe. There was head injury as well. 14. In the case of Raj Kumar also, Dr. Nagesh Jain appeared in the witness box and stated that the said person had also multiple fractures in the mandible bone and there was dislocation of the left big toe. There was head injury as well. There was disability on account of the injuries though it was likely to be reduced in due course. A person with multiple fractures in the mandible obviously would suffer tremendously as with such a fracture, it is not even possible to open the mouth properly and the patient cannot eat. The dislocation in the foot must have tied the injured down. The amount awarded to Raj Kumar injured also, therefore, does not call for any change. 15. Anil Kumar was treated by Dr. A.K. Kochhar, who stated that the injured had fractures of the shaft of left humerus and also fracture in the both bones of his right leg. There was some blunt injury on his chest and he complained of pain in his spinal cord. Doctor stated that the injured was operated upon. There was a small fracture in the left collar bone as well. Doctor further stated that in such cases the person is advised rest for atleast 2-3 months. Having fracture in both legs and being immoblized for more than two months is not an easy thing to bear. The pain can cause sleepless nights and great suffering. The amount awarded for pain and suffering to Anil Kumar was also, therefore, was not on the higher side. It can be safely said that the Tribunal judiciously exercised its discretion in awarding the amount to the injured towards pain and suffering. No other point was urged. 16. FAO No.2354 of 1995 titled National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bisso Devi and others, is partly allowed holding that the legal representatives of deceased Rattan Singh shall be entitled to Rs.1,72,000/- from the appellant with interest awarded by the Tribunal and future interest @ 6 % per annum. All the other three FAOs No.211,212 and 213 of 1996 are dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------