JUDGMENT : The 2nd respondent insurer in MVC Nos.287 and 288 of 2010, on the file of Fast Track Court-IV, Belagavi, has come up in these two appeals challenging the finding regarding contributory negligence said to have been contributed by the driver of Eicher goods vehicle bearing registration No.MH12/AU4032. The cross objection in MFA CROB No.814/2013 is by the claimants in MVC No. 288/2010, which was filed by the mother-in-law for herself and on behalf of her three minor grandchildren seeking compensation for the death of Smt. Anjana, who is her daughter-in-law and mother of other petitioners in the said claim petition. 2. The brief facts leading to these appeals and cross objection are that on 30.6.2007 at about 23.00 hours when owner of car bearing registration No.MH09/S1873 namely Dandesh Patil was driving the aforesaid vehicle along with his mother Smt. Chandravva and his wife Smt. Anjana and a neighbour of their family Smt. Vimala as inmates in the said car, the same met with an accident involving truck bearing registration No. MH12/AU4032 registered with 2nd respondent insurer in claim proceedings. 3. The accident is not in dispute, so also the death of Vimala an occupant of the said car who died on the next day of the accident i.e., 1.7.2007 and also death of Smt. Anjana wife of Dandesh who was driving the car at the relevant time. Thereafter three claim petitions came to be filed, one by Dandesh Patil seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by himself which is in MVC No.286/2010, another by his mother Smt. Chandravva seeking compensation for herself in MVC No.287/2010 and one more by the mother-in-law and children of deceased Anjana in MVC No.288/2010. 4. In these proceedings neither the counsel for the insurer nor the claimants in MVC Nos. 287 and 288 of 2010 knows whether any claim petition is filed by another victim Vimala in the said accident and what is the result of it. 5. Now, coming to the appeals on hand, these two appeals are filed by the 2nd respondent in MVC Nos. 287 and 288 of 2010 in challenging the awarding of compensation to the claimants therein and also in not considering the contributory negligence on the part of the driver, owner and insurer of car bearing registration No.MH09/S1873, which was driven by Dandesh Patil at the time of accident. 6. 287 and 288 of 2010 in challenging the awarding of compensation to the claimants therein and also in not considering the contributory negligence on the part of the driver, owner and insurer of car bearing registration No.MH09/S1873, which was driven by Dandesh Patil at the time of accident. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and as well as the contesting respondent on these two appeals and as well as on the cross objection which is filed by the claimants in MVC No.288/2010 seeking enhancement of the compensation. It is seen that the claim petition in MVC No.286/2010, which is filed by Dandesh has been abated due to his death. So far as other two petitions are concerned, one is by Chandravva seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by her and another by Chandravva and her grandchildren for the death of her daughter-in-law Anjana. Chandravva is satisfied with the compensation awarded to her in MVC No.287/2010. However the cross objection is only in respect of the compensation awarded for the death of Anjana. 7. The insurer has not challenged quantum in both the appeals. However what is challenged is only non-considering the contributory negligence on the part of Dandesh who has caused the accident. The reason for raising such ground is that in Ex.P.1 which is complaint dated 1.7.2007, the complainant Chandravva would state that at the relevant time of the accident the car was driven by her son in a rash and negligent manner and it is also because of his carelessness the accident has taken place. 8. With such accusation is made against Dandesh, the police after investigation have filed abated charge sheet against him also. In spite of charge sheet being filed against the driver of both the vehicles, the claimants have chosen to file claim petition only against owner and insurer of the truck to which the car has hit on its hind side. 8. With such accusation is made against Dandesh, the police after investigation have filed abated charge sheet against him also. In spite of charge sheet being filed against the driver of both the vehicles, the claimants have chosen to file claim petition only against owner and insurer of the truck to which the car has hit on its hind side. In that view of the matter, the grounds urged by the insurer is that, in the absence of the owner and insurer of car being arraigned as respondents in these two claim petitions, namely, MVC Nos.287 land 288 of 2010, the Court below while considering the compensation to be awarded should have taken the contributory negligence on the part of Dandesh, based on the material available on record and should have restricted the liability of the appellant insurer only to the extent of contributory negligence that could be saddled against the driver of the truck. With reference to the negligence on the part of driver of the car the same should have been considered against the owner and insurer of the car. 9. These appeals are contested by the respondent claimants relying upon the judgment rendered by Full Bench of the Apex Court in the matter of Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others, reported in LAWS (SC) 2015 526, wherein the points that arose for consideration before the Apex Court are as under:- 1. If the proceedings are finally determined with an award made by the Tribunal and disposed of in some cases by the appeal against the same by the High Court, does the Tribunal not become functus officio for making any further proceedings like impleading the tort feasor or initiating action against him legally impermissible? 2. What is the remedy of a tort feasor who has satisfied the award, but who does not know the particulars of the vehicle which was responsible for the accident? 10. The Apex Court after giving due consideration to the facts of the case on hand in the background of the judgment rendered in the matter which was under consideration before it, to sum up the legal position held as under:- (i) Owner, driver and insurer of one of the vehicles can be sued and it is not necessary to sue owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles. Claimant may implead the owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles or anyone of them. (ii) There can not be apportionment of the liability of joint tortfeasors. In case both the joint tortfeasors are impleaded as party and if there is sufficient material on record, then the question of apportionment can be considered by the Claims Tribunal. However, on general principles of Jaw, there is no necessity to apportion the inter se liability of joint tortfeasors. 11. If that is looked into in the background of the case on hand, what is seen is that there is indeed contributory negligence in causing the accident by the driver of the truck in applying the break in the middle of the road without giving proper signal and the same is the cause for the accident and simultaneously in the driver of the car driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashing against the truck without taking due care, caution in maintaining safe distance from the truck while following the said moving truck. 12. In this background the status of the claimants in both the petitions would be that they are seeking compensation for the composite negligence on the part of the driver of the car and as well as driver of the truck in as much as the accident being caused due to carelessness on the part of both the drivers. Therefore when it come to claimants, they have right to seek compensation, composite negligence could be attributable to driver of both the vehicles. When it comes to the insurer and owner of each vehicle, then it is open for them to plead for contributory negligence on each other. In the present appeals the claimants are not either owner or driver of the vehicles involved in the accident. They are inmates of one of the vehicle who have not contributed to the accident. 13. On the contrary the composite negligence on the part of both the vehicles has caused the accident resulting in injuries to one of the claimant i.e., claimant in MVC No. 287 of 2010 and death of daughter-in-law of first claimant in MVC No.288/2010 who is also mother of claimants No.2 to 4 in the said claim petition. 13. On the contrary the composite negligence on the part of both the vehicles has caused the accident resulting in injuries to one of the claimant i.e., claimant in MVC No. 287 of 2010 and death of daughter-in-law of first claimant in MVC No.288/2010 who is also mother of claimants No.2 to 4 in the said claim petition. Therefore when the claim has arisen, legal position as held in the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court will have a direct bearing on the issue, in these appeals. In the light of the finding given at paragraph No.10 of the judgment wherein by following the judgment rendered in the matter of P.O. Anthony vs. Karvarnan and others which is reported in 2008(3) SCC 748 and also in the matter of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another vs. K. Hemlatha and others, reported in 2008(6) SCC 767 , the claim petitions are allowed in the matter of Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others. 14. In the light of the aforesaid judgment this Court is of the opinion that it is not open for the insurer to challenge the finding of the Tribunal in the claimants seeking compensation exclusively by one of the tort feasor for the composite negligence caused by the drivers of both the vehicles. In any event this Court would observe that it is open for the insurer of the truck bearing registration No.MH12/AU4032 to seek recovery of a portion of the compensation from the owner and insurer of the car bearing registration No.MH09/S1873 seeking quantification of the extent and contribution by the said vehicle in causing the accident. Reserving such liberty to the appellant insurer of the truck bearing registration No. MH12/4032, the appeals in MFA No.24721 and 24722 of 2011 are hereby dismissed. 15. Now coming to the cross objection in MFA CROB No.814/2013 filed in MFA No. 24722/2011, it is seen that the deceased in the accident is a lady by name Anjana. Admittedly she is the wife of Dandesh Patil who was owner and driver of the car bearing registration No.MH09/S1873 in which she was travelling at the relevant point of time along with her mother-in-law and a neighbour. In the claim petition it is stated that she was doing business in designing work and tailoring work. Admittedly she is the wife of Dandesh Patil who was owner and driver of the car bearing registration No.MH09/S1873 in which she was travelling at the relevant point of time along with her mother-in-law and a neighbour. In the claim petition it is stated that she was doing business in designing work and tailoring work. Though such a pleading is there in the claim petition, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that either she was doing any designing work or tailoring work. 16. It is relevant to mention at this point of time that in general there is an attempt to show occupation of all housewives as either business people, doing tailoring work, milk vending, vegetable vendors, conducting tuition classes and all other possible avocation. They also make it convenient to attribute such kind of profession, though there would be no proof of either avocation or income as pleaded. 17. In a given circumstance where there are more than 10 victims in a public transport and out of that if all the ten are ladies, it will be stated as if all ten of them are involved in either milk vending or tailoring in the same village leaving a question who would be their customers in that village if everybody is doing the same business. It has become order of the day to ensure a liberal compensation, by furnishing false pleading, without the support of either oral or documentary evidence. Therefore importance cannot be attached to such pleadings. However when it comes to avocation, what is required to be considered is the role of a woman as housewife, which is much more than that of a tailor, milk vendor, vegetable vendor on the street. In fact the entire household depends on her. 18. Therefore keeping all these false pleadings aside, the compensation is required to be assessed with practical view. In the instant case the claimants are mother-in-law and three minor children. Question of mother-in-law claiming compensation for the death of daughter-in-law does not stand to reason. Even according to Succession Act she is a Class-II heir and she would stand to get a share in the property only when there are no Class-I heirs. That being the case, there cannot be different yardsticks to consider her right under different provision of law. Even according to Succession Act she is a Class-II heir and she would stand to get a share in the property only when there are no Class-I heirs. That being the case, there cannot be different yardsticks to consider her right under different provision of law. Therefore what is required to be considered here is the entitlement of only minor children for the death of their mother. 19. In the instant case the age of the claimants No.2 to 4 are 13, 11 and 10. Admittedly all three are daughters. They are in their formative age, for them, the mother is not just a provider of food or a person who would take care of their shelter, she is a friend, philosopher and guide to them in their formative age and the absence of that cannot be quantified by awarding any amount of compensation either by taking the mother as a tailor, milk vendor, vegetable vendor or as a person conducting tuition classes, by taking notional income at ‘xyz’ amount. 20. So, if the case on hand is required to be considered on its merit, the loss to the children will have to be viewed independently with all these things. Therefore this Court feel that taking the notional income of Rs.3,000/- and awarding compensation to each one of them at Rs.1,50,000/- for each of them and Rs.81,000/- to the grandmother is inappropriate. Therefore this Court would award a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to each of the children towards loss of motherly affection, guidance and care at formative age and while considering that, the compensation awarded to Smt. Chandravva at Rs.81,000/- is hereby set aside from the total compensation which is awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.5,31,000/- . 21. In the instant case it is seen that a sum of Rs.69,000/- is spent for treatment of Smt. Anjana from the time of accident till her death. Hence the said amount spent towards medical expenses during her lifetime i.e., after the accident spent by her family is required to be reimbursed in its entirety. Therefore in addition to compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- which is awarded at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- to each of the minor children. The claimants are entitled to receive compensation in a sum of Rs.69,000/- towards reimbursement of medical expenses. Therefore in addition to compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- which is awarded at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- to each of the minor children. The claimants are entitled to receive compensation in a sum of Rs.69,000/- towards reimbursement of medical expenses. So far as compensation awarded to mother-in-law is concerned, she is not entitled to receive any compensation. 22. Accordingly, the cross objection filed by the claimants No.2 to 4 who are cross objectors No.2 to 4 in MFA CROB No.814/2013 is allowed. The prayer of the first cross objector who is the claimant in MVC No.288/2010 is hereby disallowed. The revised compensation is Rs.8,19,000/-. With reference to the enhanced compensation, which is awarded in the cross objection, the claimants would be entitled to receive the same with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. 23. In view of the appeals and cross objection being disposed of, the amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement.