JUDGMENT : Goverdhan Bardhar, J. 1. Both the civil misc. appeals and cross-objections arise out of the common judgment and award dated 23.08.2004 passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur District, Jaipur. Hence, same are being decided by the common judgment. 2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that the claimants filed a claim petition before the learned Claims Tribunal mainly with the averments that on 25.11.1996 at 11:30 A.M. the deceased Hari Narayan and his wife Smt. Tara Devi were travelling on a Scooter bearing No. RJ-14M-2383 on National Highway No. 11. When they reached Ramkishore Ki Dhani, a roadways bus bearing No. RJ-14P-2314 came rash and negligently and hit the scooter on the wrong side. The collusion resulting in death of both Hari Narayan and his wife Tara Devi. An FIR No. 737/1996 of the incident was lodged at Police Station Bassi. The non-claimant RSRTC filed written statement of total denial. The non-claimant Chandrabhan appeared before the learned Claims Tribunal but he did not file any written statement. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, five issues were framed. The claimants in support of their claim case produced two witnesses and the non-claimant produced one witness who was driver of the bus belonging to RSRTC. 3. The learned Claims tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award which is under challenge before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant RSRTC argued that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in ignoring the preliminary objections raised by the appellant RSRTC and also erred in proceeding to affix liability on the appellant-RSRTC without any reason or rationality. The alleged accident occurred because of lapse on the part of the deceased who was riding a scooter and was attempting to overtake the jeep which was moving ahead of him. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in ignoring the fact that the witnesses in their statements have clearly deposed that the deceased who was on the scooter, hit the rear portion of the jeep and thereby slipped and the scooter rider and the pillion rider fell down on the road. The bus did not crush the deceased but instead the accident took place with the jeep which was responsible for the sad demise. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in computing the compensation in favour of the claimants. The bus did not crush the deceased but instead the accident took place with the jeep which was responsible for the sad demise. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in computing the compensation in favour of the claimants. There was no proof of income nor there was any such proof on record to reach to the conclusion about assessing their income. Even the multiplier applied is erroneous. There was no eye witness to witness the accident but even then the learned Claims Tribunal proceeded to fix accountability and liability on the appellant-RSRTC. 5. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing in cross objection No. 36/2009, on behalf of cross-objectors argued that the findings given by the learned Claims Tribunal on issue No. 3 pertaining to the quantum while awarding meager amount of compensation, are illegal, perverse and against the material available on record. The learned Claims Tribunal while deciding issue No. 3 has committed grave error in rejecting the contentions of the claimants with regard to monthly income of the deceased on flimsy and arbitrary grounds. The learned Claims Tribunal failed to appreciate that the claimants were able to prove by way of positive unrebutted evidence that monthly income of the deceased from tailoring work was Rs. 7,000/- and there was no occasion for the learned Claims Tribunal to have disbelieved the same. While assessing the loss of dependency, the learned Claims Tribunal did not appreciate that both husband and wife had died in the accident leaving behind three minor daughters, aged and infirm illiterate parents, who were not expected to keep and produce the documentary evidence with regard to monthly income of the deceased. While assessing the loss of dependency, the learned Claims Tribunal did not appreciate that both the earning members i.e. husband and wife, expired in an unfortunate accident leaving behind three minor daughters and old parents. It was established from the evidence on record that the deceased was only son of claimant Bhanwarlal and there is none else in the family to earn livelihood. In these circumstances, deduction of 1/3rd of personal expenses from the income of the deceased was on very higher side. 6. It was established from the evidence on record that the deceased was only son of claimant Bhanwarlal and there is none else in the family to earn livelihood. In these circumstances, deduction of 1/3rd of personal expenses from the income of the deceased was on very higher side. 6. Further, per-contra, learned counsel appearing in cross objection No. 33/2012, on behalf of cross-objectors argued that the learned Claims Tribunal while deciding issue No. 3 has failed to appreciate that the claimants were able to establish from the evidence on record that monthly income of the deceased was to the tune of Rs. 4,000/-, which she was earning from tailoring work. As per the settled principle of law, monthly income of a lady should be taken to be at-least to the extent of Rs. 3,000/- and in view of the age of the deceased, it should have been further doubled, inasmuch as there was possibility of his income being at-least doubled in near future. The learned Claims Tribunal failed to appreciate that where minimum notional income is assessed as income of the deceased, it should not be reduced further by deducting any amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. The learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding meager amount of compensation on account of loss of love and affection to the respondents no. 1 to 3 who had lost their father as well as mother in such tender age. 7. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the cross-objectors placed reliance upon the judgment of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009 (6) SCC 121 . 8. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 9. In the claim petitions the claimants specifically averred that the roadways bus bearing number RJ-14P-4314 came speedily and hit the scooter on the wrong side resulting in death of both i.e. Hari Narayan and his wife Tara Devi, who were travelling on a Scooter bearing number RJ-14M-2383 on National Highway No. 11. 10. The non-claimant/appellant- RSRTC has failed to establish that the deceased on the scooter made an attempt to overtake the jeep and after collusion the scooter slipped and came under the roadways bus. The involvement of roadways bus bearing number RJ-14P-4314 is not in dispute. 10. The non-claimant/appellant- RSRTC has failed to establish that the deceased on the scooter made an attempt to overtake the jeep and after collusion the scooter slipped and came under the roadways bus. The involvement of roadways bus bearing number RJ-14P-4314 is not in dispute. The site-map of the accident has been produced by the claimants in support of the claim petition. 11. In support of claim petitions, the claimants also produced 13 other documents. AW 1-Bhanwarlal and AW 2- Smt. Manni Devi deposed that the site-map (Ex. P4) and the charge-sheet (Ex. P2) filed against the driver of the bus are certified copies. 12. In the written statement the appellant-RSRTC has stated that as per the driver of the bus, the scooter collided with the jeep and thereafter, hit with the vehicle. The learned counsel for the appellant RSRTC in the alternate has stated that the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have fixed the liability taking note of contributory negligence. 13. The non-claimant RSRTC failed to establish that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the Scooter rider. 14. It is pertinent to note that in a case of composite negligence, the claimant has a right to claim compensation from any of the tort feasor. Thus, the learned Claims Tribunal rightly fastened liability upon the appellant RSRTC and the appellant RSRTC has failed to discharge its burden that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased scooter rider. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal warrant no interference and the appeals filed by the appellant RSRTC are devoid of merit and accordingly stand dismissed. 15. So far as the cross objection No. 36/2009 filed by the cross objectors in respect of death of deceased Hari Narayan @ Heeralal is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal considering the evidence regarding the income of the deceased and dependency factor, has assessed the amount of compensation. The claimants failed to produce cogent evidence that from tailoring work deceased Hari Narayan @ Heeralal was earning Rs. 7,000/- p.m. and was ensured in the work of tailoring regularly is not established. Thus, the learned Claims Tribunal rightly assessed the income of deceased Hari Narayan @ Heeralal as Rs. 2700/- p.m. and awarded just and reasonable compensation of Rs. 4,08,800/-. There is no reason to interfere in the finding of quantum as recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 16. Thus, the learned Claims Tribunal rightly assessed the income of deceased Hari Narayan @ Heeralal as Rs. 2700/- p.m. and awarded just and reasonable compensation of Rs. 4,08,800/-. There is no reason to interfere in the finding of quantum as recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 16. The claimants have filed another cross objection No.33/2012 in respect of compensation awarded on account of death of Smt. Tara Devi, the learned Claims Tribunal while assessing the compensation and taking note of the domestic help, assessed the minimum income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lakh. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier of 18 but while assessing the compensation has wrongly deducted 1/3rd amount on account of personal expenses out of minimum income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. Thus, the learned Claims Tribunal should have awarded compensation of Rs. 15000 x 18 = 2,70,000/- without deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses. Thus, the claimants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs. 70,000/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. The award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal on account of death of Smt. Tara Devi is modified accordingly. The claimants shall be entitled to get enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 70,000/- along-with the interest as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award. Rest of the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is maintained. 17. The above appeals filed by the appellant RSRTC are dismissed and both the cross objections accordingly stand disposed of as indicated above.