JUDGMENT Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J.:- This is claimants’ appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, (‘the Tribunal’, for brevity) vide impugned award dated 06.10.1998. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that it is a case of composite negligence, therefore, the learned Tribunal erred in holding respondent No.2, liable to satisfy the award only to the extent of 75%. It is further argued that nothing has been awarded towards the future prospects of the deceased. The deduction to the extent of 1/3 is also on the higher side. The amount of compensation under the conventional heads is also inadequate. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that it is the claimants’ own case that the driver of the car was rash and negligent. The particulars of the car were also available with them but for the reasons best known to the claimants, they failed to implead the driver/owner/insurer of the said car, as respondents. It is further argued that the amount of compensation awarded is just and appropriate and does not call for any interference. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal has returned the findings that the driver of the offending bus owned by respondent No.2, was negligent to the extent of 75%, whereas, the driver of the Ambassador car was held negligent to the extent of 25%. It is nowhere recorded that the deceased himself was negligent at all. Therefore, it is a case of composite negligence. In A.P.S.R.T.C. V. K. Hemalatha, [2008(4) Law Herald (SC) 2369] : 2008(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 589, Hon’ble the Apex Court has held as under:- “10. ‘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, 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. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence on the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely be reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence.” 6. From the above, it is clear that in a case of composite negligence, the claimant has the right to claim the damages from all or any of the wrong-doers. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal to the extent that respondent No.2 shall be liable to pay 75% of the awarded amount is set aside and it is held liable to satisfy the entire award. 7. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased to be more than 40 years but less than 45 years. However, nothing has been awarded on account of future prospects. Therefore, keeping in view the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (SC), [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107] : 2009(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 77, an increase of 30% is ordered towards the future prospects. The deduction to the extent of 1/3 is also decreased to 1/4, keeping in view the number of claimants. In this way, the amount of compensation towards ‘loss of dependency’ would come to Rs.3,300/- + 30% X 12 X ¾ X 15 = Rs.5,79,150/-, as against the amount of Rs.3,96,000/-, assessed by the learned Tribunal. 8. The deduction to the extent of 1/3 is also decreased to 1/4, keeping in view the number of claimants. In this way, the amount of compensation towards ‘loss of dependency’ would come to Rs.3,300/- + 30% X 12 X ¾ X 15 = Rs.5,79,150/-, as against the amount of Rs.3,96,000/-, assessed by the learned Tribunal. 8. In addition thereto, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded for ‘loss of love, care and guidance’ to the children of the deceased, in equal shares, whereas, the claimant-mother of the deceased is awarded Rs.1,00,000/-, for loss of love and affection, in case she is alive. Another amount of Rs.15,000/-, is awarded for transportation and last rites. 9. In view of the above, the claimant-appellants are held entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,98,150/- [Rs.1,83,150/- (enhancement towards loss of dependency) + Rs.1,00,000/- (loss of love, care and guidance, payable to the children of the deceased, in equal shares) + Rs.1,00,000/- (loss of love and affection, payable to the mother of the deceased, on her furnishing affidavit) + Rs.15,000/- (transportation and last rites)], over and above the amount already awarded by the learned Tribunal, which shall be payable to them within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which, they shall also be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the present appeal, till its realization. 10. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, the present appeal is partly allowed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————