JUDGMENT & ORDER : S.G. Shah, J. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vishal Mehta appearing with Mr. Mehul S. Shah for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Dakshesh Mehta for the respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 though served, is absent. 2. The appellants herein are original claimants before the M.A.C.T. of Jamnagar in M.A.C.P. No.44 of 1996. The Tribunal has by impugned award dated 12.1.2006, dismissed the claim petition of the claimants, observing that claimants could not prove the negligence of the driver of one of the vehicle involved in the incident and other vehicle is not traceable and therefore, its driver, owner and insurer are not before the Tribunal. 3. However, so far the nature of incident, its effect and result is not much in dispute when appellant has pointed out that for the same incident, one M.A.C.P. No.1335 of 1995 preferred by legal heirs of another deceased victim of the same accident, namely, Hirenbhai Jayantilal Chauhan, the M.A.C.T. of Rajkot has by its judgment and award dated 16.4.2007 awarded an amount of Rs. 3,98,972/- to be paid by present opponents being owner and insurer of vehicle in which victims were travelling i.e. Ambassador Car No.GJK-7498. 4. It is undisputed fact that husband of the claimant No.1 herein, namely, Ramesh @ Ramnik Govabhai @ Govind was also travelling in the same car and while they were returning back towards Ahmedabad after performing Darshan at Chotila on 28.9.1995, near Village: Kukda, the car was hit by one another vehicle, which resulted into death of Ramesh @ Ramnik Govabhai so also Hirenbhai Chauhan. 5. Therefore, if compensation is awarded by one Tribunal to the legal heirs of Hirenbhai Chauhan as back as in the year 2007 and when neither the owner nor the Insurance Company have challenged such award, there is no reason to deny the compensation to another victim of the same road accident, only because another Tribunal of another District has observed that widow has failed to prove negligence of the driver. 6. 6. Surprisingly, the Tribunal has failed to realise and appreciate the concept of res ipsa loquitor, whereby, facts speak for itself and thus, when Ambassador Car in which victims were travelling had dashed with one another vehicle, in absence of specific evidence to prove that driver of Ambassador Car was not negligent at all, there must be a positive presumption against the driver that he was also negligent in driving his vehicle and therefore, irrespective of different percentage of contribution for the incident by different drivers, when victims were third parties to both the vehicles being passengers and not the driver of any of the vehicle, their legal heirs are entitled to full set of compensation from driver, owner and insurer of both the vehicles. 7. Even otherwise, irrespective of factual disclosure regarding involvement of other vehicle, if disclosure is only to the effect that Ambassador car has met with an accident wherein passenger of Ambassador car had died, then also, owner and insurer of Ambassador Car would be liable to pay compensation to the legal heirs. 8. On one more ground also, the claimants are entitled to compensation i.e. provision of Section 163A wherein even pleading or evidence of negligence is not required. Therefore, by all means, the rejection of claim petition by impugned judgment by the Tribunal on the ground that claimant, who is widow of the victim of road accident, had failed to prove the negligence of driver of Ambassador Car, cannot sustain. Therefore, by all means, the impugned judgment needs to be quashed and set-aside. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the available evidence on record in form of FIR, Panchnama of place of incident, so also the deposition of Ramniklal Valjibhai Patel as PW-3 at Exh.43. He has categorically deposed in his examination-in-chief that motorcar No.GJK-7498 was driven by its driver Bhupatbhai K. Solanki, which met with an accident because of its full speed and it has went 50 Ft. after hitting with a wall and that he as well as Hatimbhai and driver Bhupatbhai were injured in the accident; whereas, Ramesh Govabhai and Hirenbhai died in such accident. He also confirms that during treatment, even driver Bhupatbhai has also expired. after hitting with a wall and that he as well as Hatimbhai and driver Bhupatbhai were injured in the accident; whereas, Ramesh Govabhai and Hirenbhai died in such accident. He also confirms that during treatment, even driver Bhupatbhai has also expired. Such witness has categorically stated that this incident had happened because of negligency of driver of their car and therefore, there is ample evidence on record confirming the negligence of the driver and thereby, the Tribunal has committed blunder in dismissing the claim petition as discussed herein above. Unfortunately, though there was disclosure in the FIR, may be because of the pretext by the driver that incident has taken place because of on-going vehicle, the claimants have also pleaded accordingly. But, when occupant of the vehicle being eye-witness has categorically deposed before the Tribunal that police has recorded his statement and that driver of their car was driving it rashly and negligently and in full speed and went on wrong side of the road and collided with the wall, in absence of any evidence to rebut such specific evidence on record, either by the owner of the car or insurer of the car, there is no reason to discard such evidence. 9. Therefore, when another Tribunal has in M.A.C.P. No.1335 of 1995 held that the driver of Ambassador Car was also negligent and that claimants are entitled to recover total amount of compensation from either joint tortfeasor and thereby, from the owner and insurer of Ambassador Car also, the impugned award is hereby quashed and set-aside so as to hold that claimants are entitled to compensation from the present opponents. However, unfortunately, when Tribunal has not entered into an exercise of calculating the amount of compensation that may be awarded to the claimants, considering the fact that accident is of the year 1995 i.e. before 23 years and thereby, when claimants are without compensation for last more than two decades, it would be appropriate to ascertain the amount of compensation herein only, instead of remanding the matter back for the said purpose. 10. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimant had examined herself at Exh.39 as PW-1 and at Exh.41 as PW-2 she has examined one Parshottambhai Kanjibhai being Engineer, who assigned the work on contract to the deceased Ramesh Govabhai. 10. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimant had examined herself at Exh.39 as PW-1 and at Exh.41 as PW-2 she has examined one Parshottambhai Kanjibhai being Engineer, who assigned the work on contract to the deceased Ramesh Govabhai. The conjoint reading of such oral as well as supporting documentary evidence at Exh.42 confirms that claimants have successfully proved the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- p.m. There is no other evidence to rebut such contentions by the claimants. Therefore, even if we do not consider Rs. 5,000/- as monthly income of the deceased and even if we take Rs. 3,500/- as reasonable earning capacity of the victim on the date of accident, and after adding 40% towards prospective rise in income i.e. Rs. 5,000/- as average earning capacity of the deceased, thereby, not taking income of the deceased as stated by the widow as income on the date of incident, but the average prospective income, after deducting 1/4th from such average prospective income of Rs. 5,000/-, the monthly dependency of the claimant would be Rs. 3,750/- and applying 14 as suitable multiplier to such amount, total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 6,30,000/-. To such amount, an amount of Rs. 70,000/- is to be added in aggregate for different conventional heads as confirmed by full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case between National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 11. It cannot be ignored that claimants have claimed only Rs. 5 Lacs in their claim petition. However, considering the decision by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 , the court has to award just and reasonable compensation irrespective of actual claim by the claimants when they are illiterate, widow and victim of incident. However, considering the fact that claim petition has been dismissed by the Tribunal, and claim is only for Rs. 5 Lacs and whereby, the compensation is determined for the first time after 22 years, on one hand, though claimants are not responsible for such delay, similarly, the opponents are also not responsible for delayed payment and therefore, to strike a balance between the parties, the interest is awarded @ 6% from the date of application till its realisation. 12. Thereby, the First Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 12. Thereby, the First Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Since the impugned judgment and award is dismissing the claim petition, now, claim petition is allowed as aforesaid. Though 22 years have elapsed from the date of incident, as and when amount is deposited before the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall invest 60% amount in FDR and 40% be paid to the claimants in cash. 13. Out of the awarded amount, the Tribunal shall disburse 50% amount in favour of the claimant No.1 being widow of the victim, 17% in favour of the claimants No.2 and 3 each and 10% in favour of claimant No.4. 14. R & P, if any received, be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.