JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. S.K. Patel for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. H.G. Mazmudar for respondent No. 3, whereas learned advocate Mr. Mehul Mehta for respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 1 though served has remained absent, whereas respondent No. 2 is deleted. 2. Perused the record as well as record and proceedings received from the tribunal. The appellants herein are original claimants in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 250 of 2005 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Kachchh @ Bhuj. They are widow and minor children of the victim of the road accident. Respondents are driver, owner and insurer of vehicle involved in such accident. 3. Since either of the opponents have not challenged the award, whereby the tribunal has directed them to pay an amount of Rs. 4,25,500/- towards compensation to the claimants, it becomes clear that there is no dispute so far as incident and its result is concerned. However, since the tribunal has held the victim equally responsible and liable for the accident and, thereby, though quantum of compensation is calculated to the tune of Rs. 8,51,000/- sliced it by 50% and awarded Rs. 4,25,500/- and when claimants have challenged the award both on the ground of negligence and quantum, and relevant details of incident and evidence on record needs to be scrutinized. 4. It is undisputed fact that on 02.06.2005, victim Vargis Kunjumon Roy was travelling on Motorcycle No. GJ-12AA-697, driven by his colleague Ajitsinh Bhikhuji Vaghela. It is undisputed fact that when they were travelling towards Gandhidham from Mundra Port, near village Hatadi, one trailer was going towards Gandhidham and all of a sudden without giving signal, driver has taken his tailor on wrong side so as to avoid hit with Blue Bull (Nilgai) which was came all of a sudden on road and while doing so, the trailer has dashed the backside of the motorcycle whereon deceased was travelling as a pillion rider. Thereafter trailer had stopped on wrong side and its driver was ran away. Such incident was witnessed by the complainant who was also travelling on the same road in his car bearing No. GJ-12P-7181 and, therefore, he has lodged a complaint against driver of the trailer bearing No. GJ-12X-1741 with Bhuj police Station as C.R. No.66 of 2005 on 03.06.2005. Thereafter trailer had stopped on wrong side and its driver was ran away. Such incident was witnessed by the complainant who was also travelling on the same road in his car bearing No. GJ-12P-7181 and, therefore, he has lodged a complaint against driver of the trailer bearing No. GJ-12X-1741 with Bhuj police Station as C.R. No.66 of 2005 on 03.06.2005. after investigation and after recording the panchnama of place of incident, the police has filed charge-sheet against such driver. The relevant documents regarding such investigation confirming the incident and its outcome being FIR, Panchnama of place of incident, inquest panchnama, letter by the Investigating Officer to Medical Officer for performing postmorterm and postmorterm note and death certificates of the deceased are produced on record at Exh. 48 to 54 respectively, licence of the driver of the trailer, its RC Book, certificate and schedule of policy are produced at Exh. 55 to 61, whereas salary certificate of the deceased is at Exh. 62 which is supported by income tax returns at Exh. 43 and 44. The appellant has examined herself at Exh. 25 but she was not eyewitness. Her deposition proves the age and income of the deceased, whereas PW-2 at Exh. 33 namely Dashrathbhai V. Patel has proved the income of the deceased with several documentary evidence. Therefore, so far as negligence is concerned, the complaint and panchnama which is proved on record are substantial evidence. The reading of complaint specifically confirms that when trailer has dashed the motorcycle on its backside and when thereby pillion rider has received fatal injury and died, I do not see any reason and substance in the discussion on the issue of negligence by the tribunal when the tribunal has held that motorcyclist was also equally responsible for the incident. The discussion on the issue of negligence goes to show that the tribunal has presumed certain things on its own without taking into consideration the documentary evidence in the form of First Information Report, fixed the responsibility of the motorcycle driver equally with the driver of the trailer, when there is specific evidence of 3rd person, complainant, who has seen the incident on his own and lodged a complaint stating that trailer had all of a sudden gone on its wrong side and dashed motorcycle. In such cases principle and concept of res ipsa locutar would certainly apply and, therefore, relying upon the decision in case of Sarladevi vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2014) 15 SCC 450 and when neither of the opponents being driver, owner and insurer of offending vehicle came forward with any evidence that motorcycle has also contributed to the negligence, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence to prove that motorcycle is also negligent, the prima facie evidence in the form of complaint cannot be ignored as done by the tribunal. The combined reading of oral as well as documentary evidence on record specifically confirms that a trailer had went 10 feed ahead after dashing motorcycle and it was laying on wrong side after the accident. Therefore, the tribunal has erred in holding motorcycle equally responsible for the accident. Thereby, such consideration needs to be quashed and set aside by holding that accident had taken place because of sole negligence of the respondent trailer driver alone and there was no contribution of the motorcycle driver in incident and, thereby, there is no contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle. 5. It can also to be considered that amount of compensation can be reduced considering contributory negligence of one of the tort-feeser only while awarding compensation to such tort-feeser or his legal heirs, whereas in the present case it is undisputed fact that victim deceased was pillion rider and, therefore, even if driver of the motorcycle was negligent and even if claimants have not joined such driver of motorcycle, it becomes a case of composite negligence of two tort-feeser and victim being 3rd party to both such vehicles, he is entitled to recover full set of compensation from either of the tort-feeser and, therefore, also reducing the amount of compensation to 50% after calculating it by the tribunal is absolutely illegal. 6. Therefore, now claimants are entitled to full set of compensation as calculated by the tribunal i.e. Rs. 8,51,000/-. However, claimant has also challenged the quantum of compensation, submitting that the tribunal has not awarded just and reasonable amount towards different conventional heads. 6. Therefore, now claimants are entitled to full set of compensation as calculated by the tribunal i.e. Rs. 8,51,000/-. However, claimant has also challenged the quantum of compensation, submitting that the tribunal has not awarded just and reasonable amount towards different conventional heads. So far as loss of dependency is concerned, I have perused the available evidence on record and though there may be different consideration I do not wish to modify such quantum only because other view is possible, when the tribunal has assigned reasons for arriving at such conclusion. However, when the tribunal has awarded only Rs. 35,000/- considering the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Shetti, (2017) 16 SCC 680 claimants are certainly entitled to total Rs. 70,000/- as aggregate compensation towards different conventional heads and, therefore, impugned order is modified so as to confirm that claimants are entitled to Rs. 8,86,000/- with 7.5% interest as awarded by the tribunal. 7. Therefore, appeal is partly allowed to aforesaid extent. The impugned order is modified to aforesaid extent. Thereby, now claimants are entitled to Rs. 4,60,500/- with 7.5% interest. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned tribunal forthwith.