JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Perused the record. 2. All these matters are arising out of common judgment and award dated 28.6.2005 which is consolidated judgment for two claim petitions being Motor Accident Claims Petition Nos.572 of 1998 and 554 of 1998 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bhavnagar. Therefore, all these matters are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Motor Accident Claims Petition No.572 of 1998 was preferred by legal heirs of deceased victim of road accident namely; Gautam Lalbhai Raval claiming the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation from driver, owner and insurer of Tempo No.GJ-3V-6707 and driver and owner of ST Bus No.GJ-18V-484 contending that their minor son was travelling in such Tempo, which was met with an accident, wherein he received fatal injuries. 4. Whereas Motor Accident Claims Petition No.574 of 1998 was preferred by legal heirs and dependents of deceased Harisinh Khodubhai Dabhi claiming Rs.6,00,000/- for compensation. It is undisputed fact that said victim namely; Harisinh was driver of the vehicle No.GJ-3V-6707 at the relevant time and he died in such vehicular accident. 5. By impugned award and judgment, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Bhavnagar has considered the inter-se negligence of ST driver and Tempo driver in the ratio of 75% and 25% respectively. However, so far as claimant of Motor Accident Claims Petition No.572/1998 is concerned, since victim was passenger in one of the vehicle, there was no deduction on account of such inter-se negligence. The Tribunal has awarded in all Rs.2,39,000/- to the legal heirs and parents of such victim. 6. Whereas in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.545/1998, though Tribunal has calculated the quantum of compensation that may be awarded to the legal heirs of deceased victim as Rs.5,67,000/-, considering 25% negligence of the deceased victim, who was driver of one of the offending vehicle being Tempo, deducted 25% amount of compensation for his negligence, which amounts to Rs.1,41,750/- and thereby awarded an amount of Rs.4,25,250/- to legal heirs of the deceased. 7. Such consolidated award has been challenged by most of the litigants except claimant of Motor Accident Claims Petition No.572/1998; so also owner of the Tempo No.GJ- 3V-6707. 8. The First Appeal No.3103/2005 is preferred by insurer of such Tempo challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants of Motor Accident Claims Petition No.572/1998. 7. Such consolidated award has been challenged by most of the litigants except claimant of Motor Accident Claims Petition No.572/1998; so also owner of the Tempo No.GJ- 3V-6707. 8. The First Appeal No.3103/2005 is preferred by insurer of such Tempo challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants of Motor Accident Claims Petition No.572/1998. The Insurance Company could not challenge the award in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.545/1998 because it was not party in such claim petition before the Tribunal, since the claimants are legal heirs of the driver of the vehicle insured by it. 9. Whereas owner of the ST Bus being GSRTC has preferred First Appeal No.5179/2006 against award in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.572/1998 whereas Appeal No.5180/2006 against award in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.545/1998. So far as appeal against award in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.545/1998 is concerned, the original claimants have also filed cross objections No.3/2012. 10. The main contention by appellant - ST Corporation and original claimant in their appeal and cross objections are with regard to negligence as well as quantum. 11. However, when all such different matters are arising out of the same impugned judgment they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 12. So far as appeal by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is concerned, learned advocate Mr.Nanavti appearing for such appellant has fairly contended that as the appeal is pending since the year 2005 and as appellants have already deposited their share at the relevant time considering the fact that ultimately their liability is limited to 25% of Rs.2,39,000/- only, at this stage, this appeal may be disposed of considering the quantum of amount. Therefore, so far as First Appeal No.3103/2005 is concerned, it is held that such appeal is dismissed merely considering the smallness of amount without entering into further details and merits of such appeal. 13. Whereas, so far as challenge against award in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.545/1998 is concerned, on one hand, learned advocate Mr.Raval has vehemently submitted that Corporation has preferred the appeal, on perusal of entire record and more particularly Record and Proceedings which makes it clear that if at all there is any possibility of deviation and modification in impugned award either on the count of negligence or on the quantum, its benefit should certainly be given to the ST Corporation. For the purpose, he has vehemently argued the matter and referred all relevant evidence on record to show that both the drivers were equally negligent and that Tribunal has awarded higher amount of compensation. 14. As against that, learned advocate Mr.Solanki appearing for original claimant has also vehemently submitted that Matador driver was not negligent at all and Tribunal has erred in awarding just and proper compensation to the legal heirs of the victim. 15. Therefore, in any case, we have to scrutinize the entire award and to verify that whether there is any error in impugned award so as to modify the decision either regarding negligence or quantum so far as award in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.545/1998 is concerned. 16. It is undisputed fact that claimants in such petition are legal heirs of deceased Harisinh Khodubhai Dabhi. It is also undisputed fact that at the relevant time, victim was driving Tempo from Ahmedabad to Una. Whereas, ST was plying between Amreli to Una i.e. from Una to Ahmedabad. The complaint of the incident was lodged by ST driver namely; Rajnikant Chottalal. It is disclosed in such complaint at Exh.28 that on 12.5.1998 when ST was plying between Amreli to Bapunagar (Ahmedabad) and when it was between village Dedkadi and Parvala, a Matador was coming from opposite direction. Even if we may not rely upon the factual details in allegation of such complaint, it clearly discloses that there is head on collision between Bus and Tempo on the road from Amreli to Ahmedabad between the village Dedkadi and Parvala. Pursuant to such FIR, Investigating Agency has drawn a Panchnama on the same day. Copy of Panchnama is at Exh.29, perusal of which makes it clear that the road from Dedkadi to Parvala is from East to West i.e. Dedkadi is on Eastern side and Parvala is on western side i.e. (Ahmedabad is on Eastern side and Amreli is on Western side on the road. The reading of the panchnama; so also pleadings and evidence of witnesses makes it clear that there is no dispute so far as place of direction of road and accident is concerned. The reading of the panchnama; so also pleadings and evidence of witnesses makes it clear that there is no dispute so far as place of direction of road and accident is concerned. The Panchnama further discloses that the actual place of incident the road is four lane from Dedkadi village and at that place ST Bus which was otherwise plying from Parvala to Dedkadi side was lying on north edge of the road and its front portion is outside the edge of the road and dashed with the road side tree, whereas back portion is only two feet on the road side. Whereas, on southern side of the road, at the distance of 25 feet from the Bus, Tempo was lying on the road and went into 10 feet below the road in ditch. Panchnama has disclosed that there is damage in front of the ST Bus and its radiator as well as both front lights were broken and pieces of glass were lying at the place with blood stains and pieces of dead body where bus was lying. Therefore, in such cases, the negligence is to be considered based upon the place of actual impact and position of vehicle thereafter. Thereby, if blood stains and other remarkable pieces are found at the place where bus is lying, by all probabilities, the actual place of impact would be placed where bus is lying after the accident. If it is so, it becomes clear that after the impact bus is stopped nearby where it has dashed with tree of the road whereas Tempo has travelled 25 feet further and went into road side ditch. Thereby, though it can be said that dragging 25 feet after the accident may be because of loosing control over the vehicle by the driver because of the injuries received at the place of actual impact and incident, the fact remains that there is no clarity to identify that impact had taken place on which part of the road i.e. distance from either edge of the road but in any case it can certainly be said that it is a head on collision when front part of the bus had got damaged, whereas entire cabin of the Tempo had been crashed. However, if at all, it was full head on collision between both the vehicles and if at all ST was on wrong side then probably Tempo would not have travelled further towards its way towards Parvala and either it could have stopped at the place of impact itself or because the ST bus is larger and heavy vehicle than the Tempo, Tempo would have gone little bit on back side after such impact when his driver was injured. But when Tempo has travelled further from the place of incident, it can certainly be said that it was not full head on collision but front part of driver side of both the vehicles had dashed, which resulted into heavy damage on driver side of the Tempo and, thereafter, it has went further and fallen down in the ditch. The scenario visualize from the Panchnama makes it clear that the other damage i.e. damage to the front of the bus and its both front lights, may be not only because of impact between two vehicles but it may be because of the impact of bus with a tree after the incident. Therefore, damage on both the front head lights of the bus, as submitted by learned advocate Mr.Solanki cannot be enough to conclude that ST driver was sole negligent for the incident. Similarly, the damage due to impact on Tempo is on driver side whereas cabin may have been crashed because Tempo has gone into 10 feet ditch. 17. In addition to above factual details emerging from the documentary evidence, learned advocate Mr.Solanki for the claimants is relying upon deposition of one Mr.Chandan Singh Dabhi as PW-3 at Exh.43. Said witness who is of 60 years has deposed that he was cleaner in such Tempo and he show an oncoming bus on road and dashed Tempo because of which Tempo has turned turtled and went into 10 fit ditch. It is his say that for such incident he went to police station and lodged a complaint but ST driver has already lodged a complaint and, therefore, police has recorded his statement. It is his say that accident has taken place because of sole negligence of the bus driver. However, the witness does not know that with whom he is serving and name of his own employer and owner of the Tempo. It is his say that accident has taken place because of sole negligence of the bus driver. However, the witness does not know that with whom he is serving and name of his own employer and owner of the Tempo. Surprisingly, though he has received fracture of two ribs, probably he has not filed a claim petition which gives an impression that probably he is chance witness when claimants have not called for his police statement to confirm that what he has disclosed to the police on the date of incident and whether it gets corroboration with his deposition or not. 18. Therefore, in absence of any reliable and cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt, in such summary proceedings before the Tribunal regarding entitlement of compensation by victim, the inter-se negligence of two tort-feasors cannot be decided when litigants are instead of producing proper evidence simply relies upon FIR, Panchnama and deposition of the witnesses without confirmation that whether such witness had been examined in a criminal trial against the concerned driver whose negligence is to be so decided in such petition. However, pursuant to several decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, generally, in such cases, inter-se negligence of the drivers are being decided by the Tribunal solely with a view to fix the inter-se liability of payment of compensation by Insurance Company of their vehicle. But when in a given case, claim is by one such driver as a tort-feasor, then, evidence produced half heartily or minimum evidence produced on record would simply entitle the Tribunal to fix the inter-se liability based upon what is transpire from such minimum evidence. 19. In any case, at present, as aforesaid, there is only evidence of one witness namely; Chandan Singh Dabhi who has come forward with a statement that ST driver was sole negligent and Matador driver was not negligent at all. However, when Matador driver is victim and died in the incident, it would be appropriate for the claimant to call for the police papers and to examine other relevant witnesses to confirm that it was only ST driver who was negligent and that driver of the Tempo i.e. victim of the accident was not negligent at all. Claimants should have also call for chargesheet if any filed against ST driver. Claimants should have also call for chargesheet if any filed against ST driver. It cannot be ignored that the witness is aged about 60 years and saying that he is serving as a Cleaner in Tempo and he does not know the name of his employer. It cannot be ignored that if at all he had received fracture on two ribs, he would have certainly file claim petition. 20. As against that, ST driver has stepped into witness box as OW-1 at Exh.47. He has fairly admitted that he has been chargesheeted in departmental proceedings by ST Corporation and his three increments were stopped and amount of Rs.2,500/- has been recovered from his salary towards damages to the bus because of his involvement in the incident. However, it is also his statement on oath that no criminal proceeding was initiated against him and that his licence is not suspended after such incident. There is no evidence in rebutal of such statement on oath. Therefore, when ST driver being eye witness has deposed the manner in which incident has taken place, now, there is rival contention and evidence on record amongst which Tribunal has to scrutinize that which evidence is proper or at least by such evidence who can be held negligent. Therefore, when Tribunal has after considering available material on record came to the conclusion that both the drivers are negligent and fixed the inter-se liability @ 75% and 25% respectively between ST driver and the Tempo driver, I do not see any reason to interfere in such determination which is based upon evidence on record. 21. The perusal of deposition of ST driver makes it clear that though he is one of the tort- feasor, his deposition is more trust-worthy than deposition of PW-3 namely; Mr.Chandan Singh Dabhi. It is clear from the evidence of the ST driver that the accident has taken place in the middle of the road and that Tempo was coming in speed from the opposite direction and that there was no place for him to take his vehicle more on left side and that his bus was stopped at the place of incident itself and Matador was also stopped nearby and that he was not present at the time when panchnama was prepared. 22. 22. I do not find substance in the submission by learned advocate Mr.Solanki for the claimant that ST driver has not come to disclose true facts before the court when he does not admit that both the front head lights of the bus were damaged in the incident and some such other details which was disclosed in panchnama but denied by the driver. I do not see any substance in such submission for the simple reason that in the same incident, driver was also injured to some extent, he was fallen down from the bus and he has admitted that he had rushed to the nearest Depot and lodged a complaint. Therefore, he has no reason to deny on factual details but if factual details are not known to him in proper perspective and if he does not admit it in his cross examination, then, it cannot be said that he is telling lie. It cannot be ignored that the bus had dashed with right side after the incident and thereby by all probabilities, the right and other front part of the bus were damaged because of such impact with the tree and not because of the impact with oncoming Tempo. Therefore, if driver has strict to his version that both the front lights of the bus was not damaged in the incident then probably he is right because though the driver side front line was damaged in the incident, the other front lights may have been damaged because of impact of the bus with the tree. 23. In view of above factual details, when available evidence categorically confirms that both the drivers were negligent for the incident, only because one of the driver has expired and his legal heirs being widow has preferred claim, though, the legislature is liberal towards such claimant, so far as liability of tort-feasor in incident is concerned, it cannot be said that Tribunal should not consider the negligence of the deceased victim only because his heirs are claimants so as to enable them to have maximum amount of compensation from other tort-feasor. 24. 24. In view of above facts and circumstances, so far as issue regarding inter-se negligence is concerned, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment so as to modify it, more particularly, when Tribunal has considered reasonable percentage of negligence on the part of deceased victim i.e. 25% only though it was head on collision on middle of the road. 25. Then remains the issue regarding quantum of compensation that was awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased driver of the Tempo. The claimant has examined only herself for proving the income of the deceased and it is her say in her deposition at Exh.29 that her deceased husband, who was 42 years of age at the relevant time, was getting Rs.5,500/- from Tempo owner namely; Ashokbhai and deceased was giving Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- to her per month for house hold expenses. In cross examination, she admits that her husband was serving as a driver with opponent No.3. This may be a typographical error because owner of the Tempo is opponent No.1 before the Tribunal. She further admits that here husband was getting wages for the days when he has to go out with the vehicle and not for the days when he has not go with the vehicle. Thereby, she admits that her husband was not getting salary for full 30 days in a month. To that extent, it can be said that practically he is working as a daily wager only and not on a permanent job as a driver so as to earn fix monthly salary. It is categorically admitted by the widow that at the month end, there was an account and payment of the days for which her husband has worked. She also admits that there is no documentary evidence to prove the income of her husband as Rs.5,500/- per month. She also admits that in claim petition she has disclosed that her husband is getting Rs.5,000/- per month. To that extent, she has changed her version in her deposition regarding income by her husband when she says that her husband was earning Rs.5,500/- per month instead of Rs.5,000/- per month as disclosed in the application itself. 26. She also admits that in claim petition she has disclosed that her husband is getting Rs.5,000/- per month. To that extent, she has changed her version in her deposition regarding income by her husband when she says that her husband was earning Rs.5,500/- per month instead of Rs.5,000/- per month as disclosed in the application itself. 26. Unfortunately, learned advocate for the claimant submits this Court to rely upon a document alleged to be issued by the owner of the truck as a salary certificate though it is not proved on record by proper evidence. However, if we examine such piece of paper which is not properly proved on record, it becomes clear that if at all owner was paying Rs.5,500/- towards salary as disclosed on such piece of paper, then, claimant would have certainly disclosed such income in their application. But claimants have disclosed in the application that deceased was getting only Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, there is reason to believe that the claimants are not telling truth before the Tribunal. 27. As against such oral evidence of the widow only, the Tribunal has considered Rs.3,000/- as monthly income of the driver in the year 1998 when incident has taken place and after adding another Rs.6,000/- to it, the Tribunal has considered Rs.9,000/- as maximum earning capacity and, therefore, Rs.4,500/- as average monthly earning capacity of the deceased. Thereafter, Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd income of the deceased towards his personal expenditure and considered Rs.3,000/- as monthly dependency of the claimant and applied 15 as suitable multiplier considering the age of the victim being 43 years within a group of 40 to 45 as per statutory schedule under the Act. However, when Tribunal has awarded only Rs.27,000/- for all other conventional heads than loss of income, there is some room to enhance the amount of compensation to some extent. Therefore, considering the over all facts and circumstances emerging from the record, even if we consider Rs.5,500/- as stated by the widow as average earning capacity including future prospective income of the deceased victim then, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses being Rs.1,815/-, claimants are entitled to monthly dependency of Rs.3,685/-. If such amount is multiplied by 12, then, yearly dependency would be Rs.44,220/- applying 15 as suitable multiplier, the total would come to Rs.6,63,300/-. If such amount is multiplied by 12, then, yearly dependency would be Rs.44,220/- applying 15 as suitable multiplier, the total would come to Rs.6,63,300/-. If we add Rs.70,000/- towards different conventional heads as per decision by full court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 , then total would come to Rs.7,33,300/-. If we deduct 25% towards negligence of the deceased himself being Rs.1,83,325/-, then, claimants would be entitled to Rs.5,49,975/-. As against that, Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,25,250/-. Therefore, claimants are entitled to additional amount of Rs.1,24,725/- with 9% interest from the date of application i.e. 5.8.1998 till its realization. 28. In view of above facts and circumstances, the appeals filed by the appellant - Insurance Company are dismissed whereas cross objections filed by the claimants are partly allowed to aforesaid extent whereby now the impugned order is modified to above extent confirming that claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.5,49,975/- with 9% interest and, therefore, now they are entitled to additional amount of Rs.1,24,725/- with 9% interest as per award. 29. It is made clear that amount if any deposited either by the ST or the Insurance Company either towards order under Section 140 of the Act as interim compensation or towards statutory requirement to file such appeals, then, those amounts are to be given credit. It is also made clear that if any such amount is not disbursed in favour of the appellant then it should be disbursed as per award in favour of the claimant. For the purpose, if any amount is lying with the Registry of this Court, then, Registry shall immediately transmit it to the concerned Tribunal. 30. It is also made clear that when ST Corporation has specifically disclosed that they have deposited their share only before couple of weeks because of some administrative difficulties, the Tribunal shall verify the factual details about deposit of entire amount by Insurance Company and if total amount as per impugned award is deposited by Insurance Company then Tribunal shall refund the amount beyond the liability of the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to such Insurance Company whereby probably 75% amount of award with interest is to be refunded to Insurance Company if such amount is already deposited by the Insurance Company and disbursed in favour of the claimant. Ltd. to such Insurance Company whereby probably 75% amount of award with interest is to be refunded to Insurance Company if such amount is already deposited by the Insurance Company and disbursed in favour of the claimant. It is made clear that in any case claimant cannot get more amount than what is awarded by this judgment and thereby deposit of any additional amount by any other opponent is to be adjusted against their liability. 31. Under the above circumstances, cross objections are partly allowed in above terms whereas appeals are dismissed. 32. R & P be sent back to the concerned Court at the earliest. No order as to costs. Interim Relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.