JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. A. Jagjit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. T. Rajendro Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 filed by the respondent No. 1(who shall hereafter be referred to as appellant) in the Motor Accident Claim Case No. 1 of 2014 of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT), Bishnupur against the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 27.01.2015 wherein the respondents in this case (claimants in the claim case) were awarded a sum of Rs. 19,57,676/- (Rupees nineteen lakh fifty seven thousand six hundred and seventy six) only for the death of Shri RK. Sanjoysana Singh in the accident caused by the vehicle (Tata Tipper bearing registration No. MN 01 8197) owned by the appellant on 04.08.2012 on the approach road of C.I. College near Konung Lairembi Gate, Bishnupur. The appellant has challenged the award on the grounds which are given verbatim here under : (i) That, the decision arrived at by the Ld. Tribunal is in gross violation of the principle of natural justice as the present appellant/respondent has not been given enough opportunity himself. (ii) That, the impugned judgment and order was passed by proceeding ex parte even without examining a single defence witness which is against the established principle of natural justice. (iii) That, the learned Tribunal ought to have given further opportunity so as to enable the respondent to give his defence witnesses. However, this opportunity has not been made available to the present appellant, therefore the impugned judgment and order dated 27.01.2015 is bad in the eyes of law. (iv) That, the settlement/agreement has already been entered between the owner of the vehicle and the members of the bereaved family in connection with the death of husband of the claimants by offering a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifteen thousand) as second installment. This agreement and understanding between the parties has not been considered to its fullest interpretation and learned Tribunal had taken a different view in adjusting the said amount to the claim amount in the claim petition made by the claimant. 1,15,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifteen thousand) as second installment. This agreement and understanding between the parties has not been considered to its fullest interpretation and learned Tribunal had taken a different view in adjusting the said amount to the claim amount in the claim petition made by the claimant. (v) That, had the learned Tribunal afforded the opportunity of defending the case of the appellant, the amount awarded in the impugned judgment and order could have been effectively bargain or, at least reduced at the time of disposal of the impugned judgment and order. Therefore, the judgment and order is also bad in the eyes of law. (vi) That, the present appellant is not in the position to make such an exorbitant amount as a compensation to the claimant and the learned Tribunal ought to have considered this difficulty being faced by the present appellant at the time of passing the impugned judgment and order. (vii) That, the learned Tribunal ought not to have shown much leniency towards the claimant at the cost of so much inconvenience on the part of the present appellant. This aspect has also not been considered by the learned Tribunal. (viii) That, no mechanical report was produced before the learned Claims Tribunal at the time of the adjudication of the claim and also no evidence was taken to establish the fact that there was mechanical error/defect in the vehicle. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal thereby fixing the liability to the present appellant is also deserved to be interfered with. Since the impugned judgment and order suffers from perversity and as such the same is liable to be interfered with. (ix) That, the learned Tribunal also ought to have examined the most vital witness in the present case i.e. the driver of the vehicle also the Regd. Owner of the vehicle to arrive at a right decision. However, this was not done by the Tribunal therefore impugned judgment and order is also bad in the eyes of law. (x) That, the ratio of compensation to be borne by the respondents i.e. the registered owner of the vehicle and diver of the vehicle has also not been clarified in the impugned judgment and order therefore the direction/impugned judgment and order suffers from deffect of in-executability. 3. (x) That, the ratio of compensation to be borne by the respondents i.e. the registered owner of the vehicle and diver of the vehicle has also not been clarified in the impugned judgment and order therefore the direction/impugned judgment and order suffers from deffect of in-executability. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 04.08.2012 at about 06:00 P.M. while riding his two wheeler “Honda Activa” on the approach road to C.I. College, Bishnupur, late RK. Sanjoysana Singh with a pillion rider namely, Shri Haobijam Premjit Singh, both constables of Manipur Police were knocked down by a vehicle “Tata Tipper” bearing registration No. MN 01 8197 belonging to the appellant, driven by respondent No. 2 in the Motor Accident Claim Case No. 1 of 2014.As a result of the same, late RK. Sanjoysana Singh and the pillion rider died on the spot. Following the accident, an F.I.R. case No. 80(8)2012 BPR PS under section 279/304-A/427 IPC was registered at Bishnupur Police Station, and postmortem on the deceased persons were conducted by Dr. Memcha Ph., Professor & Head of Department of Forensic Science, at RIMS Hospital on 05.08.2012. Thereafter, the legal heirs of one of the deceased, Shri RK. Sanjoysana Singh filed the claim case before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT), Manipur which was registered as MAC Case No. 138 of 2012 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1998, and claimed a sum of Rs. 23,00,000/-(Rupees twenty three lakh) as compensation for the death of their sole bread earner with interest admissible under law. They also prayed for an interim award of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) under section 140 of the same act pending final disposal of the claim case. The claimant No. 1 is wife of late RK. Sanjoysana Singh, victim of the accident, claimant No. 2 and 3 are his children and claimant No. 4 is his mother. The claimants are respondents in this appeal. 4. In support of the claim, the claimants filed as many as 13 (thirteen) documents and exhibited all of them as follows : LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED AND EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANTS Sl. No. Particulars Exhibit No. 1. Certified to be true copy of the F.I.R. copy issued by the O.C. Bishnupur P.S. dated. 20.09.2012 (1 sheet) Ext. A/2 2. No. Particulars Exhibit No. 1. Certified to be true copy of the F.I.R. copy issued by the O.C. Bishnupur P.S. dated. 20.09.2012 (1 sheet) Ext. A/2 2. Certified to be true copy of the Accident information report copy issued by the O.C. Bishnupur P.S. dated 20.09.2012 (1 sheet) Ext.A/3 3. Certified to be true copy of the detailed report copy issued by the O.C. Bishnupur P.S. dated 20.09.2012 (1 sheet) Ext. A/4 4. Certified to be true copy of Post Mortem report copy issued by the O.C. Bishnupur P.S. dated 20.09.2012 (2 sheets) Ext. A/5 5. Original Salary Certificate of the deceased RK. Sanjoysana Singh issued by the S.P. Bishnupur (1 sheet) Ext. A/6 6. Certified to be true of the Regd. Certificate of the vehicle, Tata Tipper involved in the accident, issued by the O.C. Bishnupur P.S. (1 sheet) Ext. A/7 7. Photostat cop of the driving license of the deceased RK.Sanjoysana Singh bearing No 20905/BPR (1 sheet) Ext. A/8 8. Photostat copy of the Sale Certificate (1 sheet) of Honda Activa on which the deceased were traveling when they were knocked down by the Tata Tipper bearing Regd. No. MN 01 8197 Ext. A/9 9. Photostat copy of Invoice (1 sheet) showing the price of Honda Activa mentioned above belonging to (L) RK. Sanjoysana Singh Ext. A/10 10. Photostat copy of Form 22 of M.V. Rule (1 sheet) for the Honda Activa of deceased, RK. Sanjoysana Singh Ext. A/11 11. Photostat copy of a document showing Granting renewal of trade certificate (1sheet) for the Tata Tipper Ext. A/12 12. Photostat copy of service I/D card (1 sheet) of (L) RK. Sanjoysana Singh Ext. A/13 13. Photostat copy of Secondary School Certificate containing Date of Birth (1 sheet) of (L) R.K. Sanjoysana Singh Ext. A/14 The claimants also filed 2 (two) affidavits and exhibited as Exhibit No. 1 and 15 in lieu of examination in-chief and of the Claimant No.1 and one eye witness. The deponent witnesses were also examined and cross examined. Besides, the doctor who conducted post mortem on the deceased and Investigating Officer (I.O.) of the FIR case also deposed as P.Ws. and they were also cross-examined by the learned counsel of the respondents. 5. The appellant with his co-respondent filed their written statement in the case. The deponent witnesses were also examined and cross examined. Besides, the doctor who conducted post mortem on the deceased and Investigating Officer (I.O.) of the FIR case also deposed as P.Ws. and they were also cross-examined by the learned counsel of the respondents. 5. The appellant with his co-respondent filed their written statement in the case. In the written statement, they did not dispute the facts of the accident and cause of the death of RK. Sanjoysana Singh for whose death the claim petition was filed. The only thing that is stated in the written statement is that a settlement had been reached between the two parties, but, while the final payment of the agreed amount was pending the claimants without disclosing the same, had filed the claim petition. According to the appellant, it was agreed that a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-(Rupees two lakh and fifty thousand) was to be paid to the family members of one of the deceased, RK. Sanjoysana Singh and a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) was to be paid to the family members of the other deceased, H. Premjit Singh (pillion rider)by the respondents in the claim case. And as far as payment to the family members of the deceased, H. Premjit Singh is concerned, payment for the whole amount has been made and as for the family members of the deceased, RK. Sanjoysana Singh, a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifteen thousand) had only been paid to Shri RK. Sanatomba Singh, father of the deceased RK. Sanjoysana Singh. The appellant and his co-respondent in support of their claim filed 3 (three) money receipts in the claim case to show that RK. Sanatomba Singh, father of late RK. Sanjoysana Singh had received a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifteen thousand) and one, H. Biren Singh, father of late H. Premjit Singh, received a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifteen thousand) and Rs. 85,000/- ( Rupees eighty five thousand) respectively from the respondent No. 1. The documents, however were not exhibited. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues : “1. Whether Shri RK. 1,15,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifteen thousand) and Rs. 85,000/- ( Rupees eighty five thousand) respectively from the respondent No. 1. The documents, however were not exhibited. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues : “1. Whether Shri RK. Sanjoysana Singh died on 04.0.2012 at about 06:00 P.M. in a road traffic accident which was occurred when a Honda Activa two wheeler on which the said Sanjoysana and one Haobijam Premjit Singh were travelling as rider and pillion rider respectively was knocked down by a Tata Tipper bearing Regd. No. MN 01 8197 at a place near the approach road to C.I. College, Bishnupur ? 2. Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claimants ? 3. What will be the justified amount of compensation ? 4. Reliefs.” 7. Findings of the Ld. Tribunal: (i) In respect of issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal after considering all the evidences in the record came to the conclusion that late RK. Sanjoysana Singh and his pillion rider, late H. Premjit Singh were knocked down by the Tata Tipper being registration No. MN 01 8197 at the place near approach road to C.I. College, Bishnupur on 04.08.2012 at 06:00 P.M. due to negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. (ii) In respect of issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal after considering all the evidences (both oral and documents) came to the conclusion that the Tata Tipper which belonged to the appellant/respondent No. 1 is the vehicle which knocked down the 2 (two) deceased while it was driven by the respondent No.2 (in claim case). Therefore, owner of the truck i.e. appellant/respondent No. 1 and the driver/respondent No.2 are liable to pay compensation to the claimants. (iii) In respect of issue No. 3,the learned Tribunal took note of the monthly salary i.e. Rs. 15,516/-(Rupees fifteen thousand five hundred and sixteen) of late RK. Sanjoysana Singh who was a police constable in the Manipur Police Department, his date of birth i.e. 01.03.1988 from the evidence given by claimant No. 1 which are supported by the relevant documents like, salary certificate, service I.D. card and educational certificate of the deceased, (L) R.K. Sanjoysana Singh. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal deducted 1/3 of the income of the deceased for his personal expenses. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal deducted 1/3 of the income of the deceased for his personal expenses. And after doing so, the remaining annual income was multiplied by the relevant multiplier i.e. 17 for the persons who have attained the age of 20 years but not exceeding 25 years as given in the 2nd Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal added the funeral expenses and other amounts payable for loss of consortium, loss of estate, death body transportation expenses and arrived at a sum of Rs.21,22,600/- (Rupees twenty one lakh twenty two thousand and six hundred)as the amount for compensation to be paid to the claimants. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal deducted the sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifteen thousand) which the respondent claimed to have been given to the father of the deceased and interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand) already paid to the claimants. After the 2 (two) amounts were deducted from the compensation amount arrived at, the learned Tribunal held the respondents liable to pay Rs. 19,57,670/(Rupees nineteen lakh fifty seven thousand six hundred and seventy) only as the final compensation. 8. It is against this award of the learned Tribunal that the appellant/respondent No. 1 has filed the present appeal on the grounds already given above. (i) The main grievances of the respondent No. 1/appellant, as it appears from the submission of the learned counsel, Mr. A. Jagjit is that the respondents were not given enough opportunity to negotiate/bargain with the claimants on the amounts of the compensation. It is submitted by the learned counsel that had they been given sufficient opportunity, they would have settled the quantum of compensation at a much lower amount keeping in view the motor vehicle was not insured, the appellant/respondent No. 1 did not have the third party insurance policy and a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifteen thousand) had already been paid towards a settlement already reached. The learned counsel drew my attention to the money receipt filed along with the appeal, wherein it is shown that one, RK. Sanatomba Singh, father of late RK. Sanjoysana Singh had received a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifteen thousand)from the O.C., Bishnupur P.S. on 16.03.2012 as compensation in connection with the F.I.R. Case No. 80(8)2012 BPR PS under Section 279/304-A/427 IPC in the presence of witnesses. Sanatomba Singh, father of late RK. Sanjoysana Singh had received a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifteen thousand)from the O.C., Bishnupur P.S. on 16.03.2012 as compensation in connection with the F.I.R. Case No. 80(8)2012 BPR PS under Section 279/304-A/427 IPC in the presence of witnesses. The learned counsel urged strongly that the case may be sent back to the learned Tribunal so that the parties will have another opportunity to bargain to come to a conclusion at a reasonable amount of compensation. (ii) Secondly, the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.1 submitted that the learned Tribunal did not decide as to the ratio of the compensation to be paid by the two respondents, owner of the vehicle and driver of the vehicle. Therefore, the record may be sent back so that the learned Tribunal may decide on this issue. (iii) The third and last point submitted by learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal did not examine one of the vital witnesses i.e. driver of the vehicle whose evidence could have made a difference in the fate of the case before the learned Tribunal. He also submitted that the respondents were not given opportunity to produce and examine their witnesses. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants contested the submission of learned counsel for the appellant as follows : (i) That, the respondents did not challenge the fact and cause of the accident but their challenge was confined only to what was stated in the last part of the joint written statement at Para No. 5 which only stated that the claim was already settled between the parties and only some more amount was left to be paid by the respondent, and it was while the time for the final payment was awaited that the claimants have filed the claim case. Therefore, in this appeal, there cannot be fresh challenge regarding the facts and cause of the accident which led to the death of the two deceased, RK. Sanjoysana Singh and H. Premjit Singh. Learned counsel drew my attention to the record of the learned Tribunal particularly at the order dated 01.12.2012 in which, it is recorded that the claimants and respondents No. 1 and 2 were present by counsel and the learned counsel representing the respondents filed Vakalatnama. Sanjoysana Singh and H. Premjit Singh. Learned counsel drew my attention to the record of the learned Tribunal particularly at the order dated 01.12.2012 in which, it is recorded that the claimants and respondents No. 1 and 2 were present by counsel and the learned counsel representing the respondents filed Vakalatnama. Learned counsel also drew my attention to the order 19.01.2013 in which, it is recorded that the claimants received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- being interim relief from the respondents. He, further, drew my attention to Misc. Case No. 62 of 2013 wherein, the respondent/appellant had approached the Tribunal for permission to file a written statement which was allowed and consequent to which written statement was filed by the appellant and his co- respondent in the claim case. Learned counsel, finally, drew my attention to the orders dated 14.03.2014, 11.04.2014 and 09.10.2014 of the learned Tribunal and submitted that the respondents filed even the list of D.Ws., but, in spite of the several opportunities given they did not produce and examine their D.Ws. And it was only after several opportunities were given but the respondents failed to produce and examine their witnesses that the D.W. hearing was closed and the award was passed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel representing appellant/respondent No1 that no opportunity was given to the respondents in the claim case to defend their case is misrepresentation of facts contrast to what is in the record of the claim case. (ii) On the second point raised by learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.1, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the compensation amount was calculated as per 2nd Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 though it should have been calculated as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.” reported in (2009) 6 SC Cases 121. The learned counsel submitted that the multiplier as per the age of the deceased should have been 18 in which case the compensation amount would have been more than that is awarded. But, since the claimants have chosen not to appeal against the award, he is not insisting on this. Therefore, the contention of the appellant’s ld. Counsel that the award is unreasonably high is a misconception. But, since the claimants have chosen not to appeal against the award, he is not insisting on this. Therefore, the contention of the appellant’s ld. Counsel that the award is unreasonably high is a misconception. (iii) Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents submitted that no settlement was reached between the parties in the claim case. Assuming but not admitting that as per the receipt filed by the appellant/respondent that Rs. 1,15,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifteen thousand)was received by Shri RK. Sanatomba Singh, father of late RK. Sanjoysana Singh, the settlement/agreement is void as per Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act since RK. Sanatomba Singh was not a first class heir of the deceased, RK. Sanjoysana Singh and therefore cannot be a party in the case. (iv) Regarding the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No. 1, that no specific share is mentioned on the liability of the respondents on the compensation amount to be paid to the claimants, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that there is nothing wrong in the award as claimants have choice to realize the compensation amount either jointly from the respondents or any of them. (v) On the last point raised by learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No. 1 that the driver of the vehicle whose evidence could have changed the fate of the case was not examine as witness, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the driver was one of the respondents in the claim case, therefore, it was for him to have appeared and gave evidence as D.W., if he had considered that that would have helped his case. Since he did not do it, he cannot now take advantage from it. The learned counsel also submitted that it would have been immaterial even if the driver was examined since the fact and cause of the accident which led to the death of the two victims was not challenged in the claim case. Findings and conclusion: 10. After having considered the submissions of both the learned counsels in the light of the record of the learned Tribunal, I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel of the appellant/respondent No. 1 that he and his co-respondent were not given enough opportunity to either contest the case or negotiate with the claimants. Findings and conclusion: 10. After having considered the submissions of both the learned counsels in the light of the record of the learned Tribunal, I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel of the appellant/respondent No. 1 that he and his co-respondent were not given enough opportunity to either contest the case or negotiate with the claimants. The record in fact shows that the respondents were represented by their learned counsel during the trial and they even filed a written statement and cross-examined witnesses and claimants. It was only when they failed to give evidence in spite of the several opportunities given to them that D.W. hearing was closed and the award was passed. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal on this ground. 11. The learned Tribunal had calculated the quantum of the compensation, according to the provision of Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - as stated at Para No. 7(iii) of page No. 7 of this judgment. “SECOND SCHEDULE OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 SCHEDULE FOR COMPENSATION FOR THIRD PARTY FATAL ACCIDENTS/INJURY CASES CLAIMS 1. Fatal Accidents : Annual Income Rs. 3000 Rs. 4200 Rs. 5400 Rs. 6600 Rs. 7800 Rs. 9000 Rs. 10200 Rs. 11400 Rs. 12000 Rs. 18000 Rs. 24000 Rs. 36000 Rs. 40000 (RUPEES IN THOSUANDS) AGE OF VICTIM MULTIPLIER(Compensation in case of death) Up to 15 yrs 15 Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. 60 84 108 132 156 180 204 228 240 360 480 720 800 Above 15 yrs. but not exdg. 20 yrs 16 57 79.8 102 125.4 148.2 171 193.8 216.6 228 342 456 684 760 Above 20 yrs. but not exdg. 25 yrs 17 54 75.6 97.2 118.8 140.4 162 183.6 205.2 216 324 432 648 720 Above 25 yrs. but not exdg. 30 yrs 18 51 71.4 91.8 112.2 132.6 153 173.4 193.8 204 306 408 612 680 Above 30 yrs. but not exdg. 35 yrs. 17 50 67.2 86.4 105.6 124.8 144 163.2 192.4 192 288 384 576 640 Above 35 yrs. but not exdg. 40 yrs 16 50 63 81 99 117 135 153 171 180 270 380 540 600 Above 40 yrs. but not exdg. 45 yrs 15 50 58.8 75.6 92.4 109.2 126 142.8 159.6 168 252 336 504 560 Above 45 yrs. but not exdg. 40 yrs 16 50 63 81 99 117 135 153 171 180 270 380 540 600 Above 40 yrs. but not exdg. 45 yrs 15 50 58.8 75.6 92.4 109.2 126 142.8 159.6 168 252 336 504 560 Above 45 yrs. but not exdg. 50 yrs 13 50 50.4 64.08 79.2 93.6 108 122.4 136.8 144 216 286 432 480 Above 50 yrs. but not exdgn. 55 yrs 11 50 50 54 66 78 90 102 114 120 180 240 360 400 Above 55 yrs. but not exdg. 60 yrs 8 50 50 50 52.8 62.4 72 81.6 91.2 96 114 192 286 320 Above 60 yrs. but not exdg. 65 yrs 5 50 50 50 50 50 54 61.2 68.4 72 108 144 216 240 Above 65 yrs. 5 50 50 50 50 50 50 51 57 60 90 120 180 200 2. Amount of compensation shall not be less than Rs. 50,000. 3. General Damages (in case of death): The following General Damages shall be payable in addition to compensation outlined above ; (i) Funeral Expenses - Rs. 2,000/ (ii) Loss of Consortium, if beneficiary is the spouse - Rs. 5,000/ (iii) Loss of Estate - Rs. 2,500/ (iv) Medical Expenses-actual expenses incurred before death supported by bills/vouchers but not exceeding Rs. 15,000/ 4. General Damages in case of Injuries and Disabilities : (i) Pain and Sufferings (a) Grievous injuries - Rs. 5,000/- (b) Non-grievous injuries - Rs. 1,000/- (ii) Medical Expenses - actual expenses incurred supported by bills/vouchers but not exceeding as on time payment - Rs. 15,000/- 5. Disability in non-fatal accidents : The following compensation shall be payable in case of disability to the victim arising out of non-fatal accidents : Loss of income, if any, for actual period of disablement not exceeding fifty two weeks. PLUS either of the following : (a) In case of permanent total disablement the amount payable shall be arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the Multiplier applicable to the age on the date of determining the compensation, or (b) In case of permanent partial disablement such percentage of compensation which would have been payable in the case f permanent total disablement as specified under item (a) above. Injuries deemed to result in Permanent Total Disablement/Permanent Partial Disablement and percentage of loss of earning capacity shall be as per Schedule I under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. 6. National income for compensation to those who had no income prior to accident : Fatal and disability in non-fatal accients : (a) Non-earning persons - Rs. 15,000/- (b) Spouse - Rs. 1/3rd of income of the earning/surviving spouse. (c) In case of other injuries “general damage” as applicable.” After arriving at the compensation amount as stated at Para No. 7(iii) of this judgment, the learned Tribunal deducted the sum of Rs. 50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand)already paid to the respondents/claimants under Section 140 of the Act and also the sum of Rs.1,50,000/(Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand) which the appellant claimed that he had given to the father of deceased, RK. Sanatomba Singh from the amount of compensation. Since the learned Tribunal had followed the norms/principle of calculating the compensation as provided under the Act, while calculating the compensation he awarded to the claimants, I find no reason or ground to interfere with the decision of the learned Tribunal. In fact what one needs to see while deciding the quantum of compensation in such cases is whether the amount considered would be just and reasonable in the circumstances of the victims family members who are entitled to the compensation. (L) R.K. Sanjoysana Singh left behind his young wife with two minor children and his mother. When he was alive, his dependents who are the claimants need not worry for their daily needs. But, after he left them, that too so suddenly, it has become the responsibility of the young unemployed bereft wife to take care of the two minor children and his mother. The life before them is long and dreary and it is difficult to imagine how they would face it without adequate resources. Considering the cost of living, cost of education and the long duration for bringing up the two minor children besides the mother of the deceased by a young widow, the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal does not appear to be unreasonably high. Rather in my opinion, it is just and reasonable in the circumstances of the respondents/claimants. Considering the cost of living, cost of education and the long duration for bringing up the two minor children besides the mother of the deceased by a young widow, the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal does not appear to be unreasonably high. Rather in my opinion, it is just and reasonable in the circumstances of the respondents/claimants. Further, the claim of the appellant/respondent No. 1 that a settlement was already reached between the parties in the claim case before the claim case was filed, is, a plea, already taken in the written statement filed by the appellant and his co-respondent in the claim case, but since that claim was not substantiated with evidence in the claim case, in spite of the opportunity they were given, the same submission cannot be entertained at the appeal stage. 12. Regarding the plea of the appellant that since the ratio of the compensation to be paid by each of the respondents in the claim case has not been decided by the learned Tribunal, the record should be sent back to have the same settled, I am not inclined to accept the argument since there is a settled principle of law that the owner (superior) of the vehicle shall be liable to pay the compensation in such cases. The maxim that respondent superior which means let the superior be liable is applicable in this case. The reason being that unless the superior or master is made responsible for paying the compensation awarded, the respondent/claimants may not be able to get the same from the driver of the vehicle (respondent No. 2 in the claim case). This principle of law is dictated by both expediency and public policy as stated here below : (i) that, such compensation should be realized from the superior (master) so that the victim or persons who suffered the loss may be able to realize the compensation. (ii) so that the superior (master) would have incentive to be careful in selecting his servants. If the master instead of doing an act himself chooses to have an act done through some other persons, he must do so at his own risk and cost. In view of the above, the appellant/respondent No.1 in the claim case who is the owner of the vehicle, Tata Tipper responsible for the accident shall alone be responsible for giving the compensation awarded to the respondents/claimants. In view of the above, the appellant/respondent No.1 in the claim case who is the owner of the vehicle, Tata Tipper responsible for the accident shall alone be responsible for giving the compensation awarded to the respondents/claimants. To that extent, the award of learned Tribunal stands modified. 13. Lastly, since enough evidence was available, examination of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident as witness would not have made any difference in the final outcome of the Claim case under appeal. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel of the respondent/claimants that it is for the appellant and his co- respondent in the claim case to produce the driver as their witness, if they want to prove their case otherwise but since they did not do so, it is to their own peril. In view of the reasons stated, I do not find merit in the submission of the appellant that since the claimants did not produce the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident whose evidence could have changed the fate of the claim case, the case should be sent back for retrial. Therefore, the submission is rejected. 14. In view of the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.