Judgment Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral):-All the aforementioned appeals shall stand decided by thiscommon order. FAO-5929-2013 2. The appeal i.e. FAO-5929-2013 is filed by the claimants andlegal heirs of the deceased-Shubham Mittal for enhancement quaassessment of the income on the ground that the deceased was 21 years ofage and Law student and the income assessed by the Tribunal is on thelower side. 3. However, there is merit in the argument of learned counselfor the claimants that the deceased was admittedly a student of Law and,therefore, the income assessed as Rs.6,000/- was on the lower side. Heunder no circumstances can be equated with a labourer. Reliance isplaced on the judgment rendered in the case of Ashwani Kumar Bhandari Vs. Darshna and others, 2010(4) PLR 99 wherein the learnedSingle Bench upheld the amount of Rs.10,000/- where the deceased was astudent of Law and the accident had taken place in the year 2000. In thepresent case, the accident is of the year 2010. Agreeing with the same,the income of the deceased deserves to be enhanced from Rs. 6,000/- permonth to Rs.10,000/- per month. 4. Accordingly, the appellants-claimants in appeal No.5929-2013 are entitled to the enhancement as per the calculation providedunder:- S. No. Head Amount assessed 1 Income Rs. 10,000/- p.m. x 12 = Rs. 1,20,000/- 2 Future prospects @ 40% 1,20,000 x 40 = 48,000 1,20,000 + 48,000 = 1,68,000 3 Deduction 50% 1,68,000 x 50% = 84,000 4 Multiplier 84,000 x 18 = Rs. 15,12,000/- 5 Conventional Heads Rs. 10,000/- 6 Total Rs. 15,22,000/- 7 Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 11,33,200/- 8 Differences Rs. 3,88,800/- 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed to the said extent.The enhanced amount of Rs.3,88,800/- be deposited within two monthsfrom the receipt of certified copy of this order alongwith the interestalready awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the claim petition till itsrealization. 6. However, in case the same is not deposited within twomonths, the same shall thereafter be deposited alongwith interest @ 12%till payment after the expiry of two months. FAO-3429-2013 7. The appeal i.e. FAO-3429-2013 is filed by the InsuranceCompany against the impugned award dated 4.4.2013 on the ground thatthe deceased in the present case was 21 years of age and was unmarried.The deduction of 1/3rd cannot be applied whereas it should be 50% onaccount of the contributory negligence. FAO-3429-2013 7. The appeal i.e. FAO-3429-2013 is filed by the InsuranceCompany against the impugned award dated 4.4.2013 on the ground thatthe deceased in the present case was 21 years of age and was unmarried.The deduction of 1/3rd cannot be applied whereas it should be 50% onaccount of the contributory negligence. Further, the car was being drivenby the father, who also died in the said accident. It was being drivennegligently as due to the late night driving, the driver of the car could notsee the dead bullock lying on the road and to avoid the accident, heturned the car towards the extreme right side and struck against the buswhich was coming on its correct side. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants does not dispute that thededuction should have been 50% instead of 1/3rd but disputes that thedriver of the car was negligent. It is stated that no evidence was led bythe appellant-Insurance Company to prove the same. Rather, theclaimants produced an eye witness. He was examined at length. Theappellant-Insurance Company in FAO-3429-2013 was not able to breakthe evidence of the eye witness which may help to conclude that thedriver of the car was in any manner negligent. Further, it is the right ofthe claimants to choose the vehicle against which they want to claim inview of the settled proposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble ApexCourt in Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. &Ors., [2015(4)MLJ 364. In para No.18 (ii) of the said judgment, it was held as under:- “In the case of composite negligence,apportionment of compensation between two tort feasorsvis a vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He canrecover at his option whole damages from any of them.” 9. Hence, the deduction made by the Tribunal towards 50% ofcontributory negligence is set-aside to the said extent. 10. Accordingly, the appeal i.e. FAO-3429-2013 filed by theappellant-Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed being devoid ofmerit. Dismissed accordingly. FAO-3430-2013 and FAO-8788-2014 11. The appeal i.e. FAO-3430-2013 too is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company on the ground that the driver of the bus was not atfault and, therefore, the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle i.e.bus cannot be made liable. 10. Accordingly, the appeal i.e. FAO-3429-2013 filed by theappellant-Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed being devoid ofmerit. Dismissed accordingly. FAO-3430-2013 and FAO-8788-2014 11. The appeal i.e. FAO-3430-2013 too is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company on the ground that the driver of the bus was not atfault and, therefore, the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle i.e.bus cannot be made liable. Learned counsel for the appellant hassubmitted that it is the admitted case of the respondents that a deadbullock was lying on the road and to avoid the same, deceased-AmarNath Mittal drove his car towards the right side of the road and, therefore,he hit into the bus which was being driven on its correct side. 12. The appeal i.e. FAO-8788-2014 is filed by the claimantsappellants on the ground that 50% contributory negligence has beenwrongly applied. 13.No doubt, the Tribunal too came to record a finding thatthere was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car i.e-Amar Nath Mittal. However, this Court is not in agreement with thesame and the said findings deserve to be set-aside. Infact, the Tribunaltoo did not really record the finding that the driver of the car wasnegligent or not. The findings reads under:- “It is held that the accident occurred due tocontributory negligence of both the drivers as it cannot bepointed out which of the vehicle was clearly at fault.” 14. PW1 Deepak Garg was one of the occupants of the car, whoalso received injuries. The statement of said Deepak Garg is re-producedbelow:- “I suffered injuries upon my elbow. I do not knowto bring the record in the Court qua the injuries suffered byme upon my elbow and right knee. It is wrong to say thatlate Amar Nath was negligent in driving the vehicle and inorder to safeguard the accident to be occurred with thedead bull died on the road he turn the vehicle to the leftside or hit the vehicle from the front. It is wrong to saythat I was not accompanying Amar Nath and was nottravelling in the said vehicle which was being driven byAmar Nath. After receiving first aid from GovernmentHospital Nawan Shahar, I along with my family membershad gone to Ivy Hospital, whereas Shubam was taken toPGI, Chandigarh in an Ambulance. It is wrong to say thatI have deposed falsely.” 15. On the other side, no independent witness was produced toprove the same. After receiving first aid from GovernmentHospital Nawan Shahar, I along with my family membershad gone to Ivy Hospital, whereas Shubam was taken toPGI, Chandigarh in an Ambulance. It is wrong to say thatI have deposed falsely.” 15. On the other side, no independent witness was produced toprove the same. Even the FIR has been registered against the driver ofthe bus. In case the said driver of the bus was not driving at a high speed,he too would have been able to avoid the accident. Since the vehicle wascoming from the opposite direction, the driver of the bus too was in aposition to see that there was a bullock on the road which should haveprompted him to slow down his vehicle. 16. In view of the above, the findings qua equally responsible isset-aside and, accordingly, the contributory negligence of 50% asdetermined cannot be sustained. 17. Accordingly, the FAO-3430-2013 is dismissed. However, inFAO-8788-2014, the impugned award dated 4.4.2013 is modified to theextent mentioned above by setting aside the findings qua contributorynegligence. FAOs-137 and 138-2014 18. The appeal i.e. FAOs-137 and 138 of 2014 are filed by theowner of the bus No.NL-02-B-1893. The appellant-owner of the bus isaggrieved by the award to the extent vide which the recovery rights hasbeen given to the Insurance Company. It was contended that the recoveryrights have been given only on the ground that the driving licence ofrespondent No.1 was not valid for transport vehicle and the driver of thebus was not authorised to drive the bus which does not fall in thecategory of either LMV/MMV/HGV. 19. However, after hearing learned counsel for the appellant-owner of the bus in question and after perusing the record, it is evidentfrom the perusal of the driving licence Ex.R1 and placed on record inappeal as Annexure A-1 that the driver was authorised to drive the lightpassenger motor vehicle, medium passenger vehicle as well as heavypassenger vehicle alongwith LMV/MMV and HGV. The said argumentof learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company that as per thewitness RW1 Gurbir Singh Cheema from the DTO Office that he was notauthorised to drive the transport vehicle cannot be sustained as theperusal of the said statement rather shows that the said RW1 denied anyknowledge as to whether the driver of the bus was authorised to drive thetransport vehicle or not. The relevant portion of the statement reads asunder:- “I do not know as to from which date and year theabove said procedure has been started as stated in myexamination-in-chief. I am not in possession of any suchdocument to show the said procedure in writing with metoday. It is wrong to suggest that there is no suchprocedure as stated in my chief and for this reason I am notin a position to produce any document in this respect. Icannot say whether respondent No.1 was authorised todrive the offending vehicle or not.” 20. Further, as per the judgment rendered in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. R.Jayalakshmi and anr, 2002 ACJ 252 and Babu Vs. Public Service Commission, 2003(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 448 asrelied upon, a person having a licence to drive heavy passenger motorvehicle can drive a heavy goods vehicle without a specific endorsementto the said effect. The case of the appellant-owner is even better. Infact,there is specific endorsement in the driving licence that the same wasvalid even for a light passenger vehicle and heavy passenger vehicle. 21. Accordingly, the appeals i.e. FAOs-137 and 138 of 2014 areallowed and the finding to the extent vide which the recovery rights havebeen given to the Insurance Company is set-aside. 22. It is now clarified that the compensation shall now be paidby the Insurance Company alone and the enhanced amount as awarded inappeal i.e. FAO-5929-2013 shall also be paid by the Insurance Company. Disposed of as above.