JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral):- The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for death of a girl, aged 19 years. The claimants were the parents. She was a pillion rider in a motorcycle driven by her friend Virender Pal. He was examined as PW2 who stated that when he was going along with his friends and turning in Patterson chowk towards Patel Park, a military vehicle coming from the opposite direction belonging to the Union dashed against the rear portion of the motorcycle that resulted in the deceased falling down and receiving fatal injuries. A FIR had been lodged by the motorcyclist himself setting out the above facts. The statement was also recorded by the driver of the military vehicle before the Tribunal who stated that the accident took place only on account of the negligence of PW2. The Tribunal referred to the admissions of PW2 in his evidence that at the time when he was negotiating the turn at Patterson chowk, he lost his balance when he saw the military vehicle coming from the opposite direction. His evidence was, “it is true that on the turn towards Patel park, my motorcycle became unbalanced and thereafter, after turning point, I saw the military vehicle. Military vehicle did not hit my motorcycle from front side, rather it hit my motorcycle from the backside...”. He also admitted that he did not have a valid driving licence, but given evidence to the effect that there were 5 motorcycles/scooters travelling at the same time side-by-side towards Patel Park. In the manner in which the evidence was let in, it could be seen that whole of the negligence was not on the part of the driver of the Union’s vehicle and it had been surely contributed by the motorcyclist. The Tribunal, however, was in error in applying the negligence of the motorcyclist to be attributed to the claimant as well. As far as the deceased was concerned, she was a pillion rider. It was a case of composite negligence and the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, were making the Union responsible for the whole of the amount and leaving it to the Union to apply for contribution from the joint tortfeasors. No part of the claim could have been abated as was done by the Tribunal. 2. It was a case of composite negligence and the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, were making the Union responsible for the whole of the amount and leaving it to the Union to apply for contribution from the joint tortfeasors. No part of the claim could have been abated as was done by the Tribunal. 2. She was a student studying in BA and I would assume the reasonable expectation of the family would have been that she would have earned at least Rs. 3,500/-. I will apply 50% cut for a claim by the parents as going towards personal consumption of the daughter and apply a multiplier of 18 to assess the loss of dependence at Rs.3,78,000/-. I will add Rs.5,000/- towards loss to estate and Rs.17,000/- towards funeral expenses to make up Rs.4 lakhs as the compensation payable. The entire amount shall be enforced by the claimants with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till date of payment against the Union. The Union may be at liberty to seek for contribution in independent proceedings against the driver of the motorcycle Virender Pal. 3. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed on the above terms. ---------0.B.S.0------------