JUDGMENT : B. R. Sarangi, J. - This is an intra-Court appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment dated 05.08.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in Misc. Appeal No. 162 of 1994 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and disposing of the cross-objection filed by the owner of the truck-respondent no.9 and allowing the crossobjection filed on behalf of the claimant-respondents by awarding a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, which can be recovered by them either from the insurer of the bus or from the owner of the trekker jointly or severally. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that claimant respondents are the legal representatives/ dependants of deceased Purusotam Dash. The deceased was travelling in a trekker bearing registration no. OSU-8428, belonging to respondent no.9. The trekker was insured with the respondent no.10-the Divisional Manager, United Insurance Company Ltd. On 05.07.1988, there was an accident involving the trekker and the bus bearing registration no. OSP-1843, belonging to respondent no.8. The bus in question had been insured with the appellant. As a result of such accident, the deceased and another person died, and a few others travelling in the trekker were injured. The deceased was unmarried and aged about 25 years on the date of accident. His parents, grand-mother and dependant brothers, major as well as minor, filed claim application before the 2nd M.A.C.T., Cuttack, vide Misc. Case No. 855 of 1988. The 2nd M.A.C.T., Cuttack issued notice to the respondents and claim in question was contested by all except the respondent no.9, the owner of the trekker, who remained ex-parte. The respondent no.8 and the appellant in their separate written statements put the blame on the driver of the trekker, whereas the insurer of the trekker (respondent no.10) generally denied the allegations made in the claim application and contended that since passengers were being carried for hire or reward, the insurance company was not liable as the trekker had been insured as a private car and not as a passenger carrying vehicle. To substantiate the claim, the claimants respondents examined four witnesses and respondent no.10, the insurer of the trekker examined one witness, but no witness was examined either on behalf of the owner or the insurer of the bus. 3. To substantiate the claim, the claimants respondents examined four witnesses and respondent no.10, the insurer of the trekker examined one witness, but no witness was examined either on behalf of the owner or the insurer of the bus. 3. After due adjudication, the leaned Tribunal came to a finding that the accident occurred due to composite negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles and assessed compensation at Rs. 2 lakhs and directed that out of the said sum of Rs. 2 lakhs, Rs. 1 lakh shall be paid by the present appellant, being the insurer, and Rs. 1 lakh shall be paid by the owner of the trekker, as passengers were being carried for hire in violation of the policy conditions. Challenging the said award dated 11.10.1993 passed by the 2nd M.A.C.T., Cuttck in Misc. Case No. 855 of 1998, the insurer of the bus filed an appeal before the learned Single Judge, which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 162 of 1994 and two cross-objections were filed, one on behalf of the claimantrespondents and the other on behalf of the respondent no.9, who, having remained absent before the Claims Tribunal, entered appearance in the appeal and prayed for direction regarding payment of the compensation amount by the bus owner/insurer of the bus/insurer of the trekker. The claimant-respondents in their cross-objection claimed higher compensation and they further submitted that the liability fixed on the owner of the trekker should be borne by the insurer of the trekker. 4. The learned Single Judge, after due consideration, upheld the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the accident occurred due to composite negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles on the ground that the drivers of both the vehicles had been withheld from the witness box and the finding relating to negligence is based on evidence of two of the occupants of the trekker and it is apparent that there was collision between the two vehicles. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable and adverse inference was drawn for non-examination of the two drivers concerned. 5. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable and adverse inference was drawn for non-examination of the two drivers concerned. 5. So far as the question of compensation is concerned, the contention raised by the appellant that the compensation assessed is on the higher side, the learned Single Judge, placing reliance on the judgments of the apex Court rendered in Narendra Kumar v. Yarenissa, (1997) 2 TAC 1 (SC), and Shankarayya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 3 SCC 140 , held that insurer is not entitled to challenge the quantum of compensation in appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act without taking recourse to Section 170 of the said Act. 6. On the basis of the materials available on record, it appears that the award of the tribunal is on the lower side. In cross-objection filed by the claimant-respondents, they have claimed higher compensation. The tribunal, taking into consideration the materials available before it, assessed the monthly income of the deceased, who was a 'C' class contractor, at Rs. 2000/- and contribution to the family at Rs. 1000/- and applied multiplier of 20. Having done so, the tribunal deducted Rs. 40,000/- on the ground that lump sum amount was being paid. Once this multiplier is applied, there is no scope for deducting any further amount on the ground of uncertainty of life or on the ground of lump sum payment. But application of multiplier 20 by the tribunal is on higher side. Therefore, the learned Single Judge assuming the income of the deceased at Rs. 2000/- per month, as assessed by the tribunal, and no more, as claimed by the claimant-respondents, and keeping in view the fact that the deceased was a bachelor and further keeping in view the number dependents, held that the finding of the tribunal that the deceased must have been spending about Rs. 1000/- on himself is unacceptable, but it can be safely concluded that the deceased must have been spending about one-third on himself and thus monthly contribution to the family members can be assessed at Rs. 1350/-. On the basis of such calculation and applying multiplier of 15, the learned Single Judge came to a conclusion that the amount would come to Rs. 2,43,000/- and odd, and by further observing that some amount can be calculated towards funeral expenses, ultimately held that a sum of Rs. 1350/-. On the basis of such calculation and applying multiplier of 15, the learned Single Judge came to a conclusion that the amount would come to Rs. 2,43,000/- and odd, and by further observing that some amount can be calculated towards funeral expenses, ultimately held that a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- would be the just compensation, which should be payable to the complaint-respondents. 7. Such finding of the learned Single Judge has been assailed in the present appeal by the appellant on the ground that the appellant is not liable to pay the said amount, as the liability has been apportioned on the insurance company as well as the owners of the vehicles. Considering such contention raised by Mr. S. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and taking into consideration the date of accident as 05.08.1988 and in the meantime more than 40 years have been passed, we are not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge. So far as payment of compensation to the claimants is concerned, since the insurer of the bus or owner of the trekker are jointly and several liable, the amount should be paid by the insurer to the claimant-respondents with a rider that insurer can recover the said amount from the owner in accordance with law. 8. In the above view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Misc. Appeal No. 162 of 1994 is hereby affirmed, subject to the above mentioned modification. The AHO thus stands disposed of. No order as to cost. Final Result : Disposed