ORDER : 1. These bunch of four first appeals from order arise out of a single accident, in terms whereof four persons travelling in a matador, expired and their legal heirs have filed the respective claim petitions. All four claim petitions were allowed by the claims tribunal by means of the award dated 09.09.2009 passed by the Special Additional District Judge (E.C. Act), Lucknow, acting as Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 2. The claimants/appellants in all four appeals are aggrieved against the award and they have assailed the award seeking enhancement on the ground that the tribunal has erred in deducting 50% of the amount so awarded on the ground that the owner and driver of the other vehicle involved in accident was not impleaded whereas it was clearly a case of composite negligence and as such the claimants were required and entitled to receive the compensation from either of the joint tort feasors i.e. the respondents and thus the tribunal has erred in deducting the amount from the compensation so granted. 3. The other ground raised is that the multiplier in certain cases have been incorrectly applied and the deduction for personal expenses have been incorrectly made and in all the cases the future prospects have not been considered and the consortium is highly inadequate thus it is prayed that in all four appeals enhancement be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, urged that the accident in question related to the year 2007 and considering the law prevailing at the relevant time, the tribunal has correctly assessed the compensation and has made the award. It was also urged that it was actually a case of contributory negligence and therefore the tribunal was justified in deducting the amount from the award so granted on the aforesaid count. Accordingly it was urged that the award did not require any interference from the Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. Since the aforesaid four first appeals from order are for enhancement, accordingly the facts given rise to the award are being noticed briefly. 6. On 26.02.2007, a Matador bearing number U.P. 32T-3920 was carrying four persons. The aforesaid Matador was being driven with due caution and care. Since the aforesaid four first appeals from order are for enhancement, accordingly the facts given rise to the award are being noticed briefly. 6. On 26.02.2007, a Matador bearing number U.P. 32T-3920 was carrying four persons. The aforesaid Matador was being driven with due caution and care. However, at round 4.45 P.M. when the aforesaid Matador reached Gram Mastipur on Lucknow Raebareli Highway near Police Station Nigonha, at the relevant time a Mini Truck bearing number U.P. 33A-8940 which was being driven extremely negligently coming from the opposite and wrong direction, hit the Matador as a result of the aforesaid accident, four persons in the aforesaid Matador received grievous injuries and ultimately all four of them died. The persons who died in the accident, namely, Sunny son of Anant Ram, aged about 20 years, who was engaged in the business of catering with M/s. Amit Caterer and was earning around Rs. 4500 per month. His mother and father Suman and Anant Ram instituted Claim Petition No. 236 of 2007 which has given rise to FAFO No. 126 of 2010. 7. Similarly the other person who expired was Rajesh Kumar, son of Chhedu Lal who was aged about 25 years also engaged in the catering business with M/s Amit Caterer earning around Rs. 6000/- per month. His wife, father and two minor children preferred Claim Petition No. 235 of 2007 which has given rise to First Appeal From Order No. 127 of 2010. 8. Surendra Kumar, son of Ram Lautan, aged about 26 years also engaged in catering works with M/s. Amit Caterer earning Rs. 6000/- per month. His wife, mother, father and four minor children preferred claim petition which was registered as Claim Petition No. 244 of 2007 which has given rise to First Appeal From Order No. 128 of 2010. 9. Another person namely Anil Kumar who also expired in the said accident, his wife, mother and minor daughter preferred Claim Petition No. 237 of 2007 which has given rise to First Appeal From Order No. 212 of 2010. 10. The tribunal after due contest upon the pleadings of the parties had framed seven issues and while dealing with issue no. Another person namely Anil Kumar who also expired in the said accident, his wife, mother and minor daughter preferred Claim Petition No. 237 of 2007 which has given rise to First Appeal From Order No. 212 of 2010. 10. The tribunal after due contest upon the pleadings of the parties had framed seven issues and while dealing with issue no. 1 held that the accident took place on account of head on collision wherein both the vehicles were responsible and it held that since the insurer of the Matador was not impleaded as a party, therefore, the claims tribunal held that the claimant in all the four petitions were only entitled to receive half the amount so awarded from the insurer of the Mini Truck. 11. Since issue of deduction of 50% from the amount awarded is common to all thus this Court first takes up this issue whether the tribunal is justified in making a 50% deduction. 12. Learned counsel for the claimants has urged that the tribunal has erred in deducting 50% from the amount awarded as it was a case of composite negligence while the principle applicable thereto have not been appreciated by the tribunal. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (4) T.A.C. 673 (SC), Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , Savita and Others vs. Divisional Manager, 2018 (2) T.A.C. 376 (SC), Hem Raj vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, 2018 (4) T.A.C. 32 (SC), Munna Lal Jain and Another vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others, 2015 (3) T.A.C. 1 (SC), Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others, 2015 (2) T.A.C. 677 (SC) and a Division Bench Judgment of this Court passed in F.A.F.O. No. 157 of 2014 decided joint on 07.12.2017 both on the point of deduction as well as for seeking enhancement. 14. On the strength of the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the appellant states that the amount awarded requires enhancement and the deduction made, is also illegal. 14. On the strength of the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the appellant states that the amount awarded requires enhancement and the deduction made, is also illegal. The first point for consideration is whether the tribunal has rightly deducted the amount from the compensation so granted on the of pretext that the insurer and the owner of the Matador has not been made a party. 15. This issue need not detain the court much longer; inasmuch as now it is fairly well settled and noticing the difference between composite and contributory negligence the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) considering the principles of composite negligence has noticed as under:- “14. There is a difference between contributory and composite negligence. In the case of contributory negligence, a person who has himself contributed to the extent cannot claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident to the extent of his own negligence; whereas in the case of composite negligence, a person who has suffered has not contributed to the accident but the outcome of combination of negligence of two or more other persons. This Court in T.O. Anthony vs. Karvarnan and Others, 2008 (3) SCC 748 , has held that in case of contributory negligence, injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong doer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liabil jointity of each wrong doer separately. It is only in the case of contributory negligence that the injured himself has contributed by his negligence in the accident. Extent of his negligence is joint required to be determined as damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries have to be reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “6. ‘Composite Negligence’ refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the co-joint opposite negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the joint injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the joint injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong- doer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence of the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands joint reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. 7. Therefore, when two vehicles are involved in an accident, and one of the drivers claims compensation from the other driver alleging negligence, and the other driver denies negligence or claims that the injured claimant himself was negligent, then it becomes necessary to consider whether the injured claimant was negligent and if so, whether he was solely or partly responsible for the accident and the extent of his responsibility, that is his contributory negligence. Therefore where the injured is himself partly liable, the principle of ‘composite negligence’ will not apply nor can there be an automatic inference that the negligence was 50:50 as has been assumed in this case. The Tribunal ought to have examined the extent of contributory negligence of the appellant and thereby avoided confusion between composite negligence and contributory negligence. The High Court has failed to correct the said error.” 16. Thereafter it has summarized the principles in paragraph- 18 and the relevant portion is being reproduced hereinafter:- (i) In the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several. (ii) In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tort feasors vis-a-vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them. (ii) In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tort feasors vis-a-vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them. (iii) In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/ extent of their negligence has been determined by the court/tribunal, in main case one joint tort feasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings. (iv) It would not be appropriate for the court/tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tort feasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tort feasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award. 17. Thus, in view of the above, it is absolutely clear and no more res integra that the tribunal has erred in making the deduction as it was a clear case of composite negligence and the claimants were entitled to sue any one of the joint tortfeasors. Thus, this Court holds that the tribunal has erred in making the deduction from the amount so granted in all the four claim petitions and consequently the claimants in the award in all the four appeals shall be entitled to the full sum as awarded by the tribunal and subject to the enhancement made in these appeals, recoverable from the respondents and it shall be open for the respondents to recover the share from the other joint tort-feasors i.e. owner/insurer of the Matador in accordance with law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Khenyei (supra). 18. Now the next issue that requires consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to enhancement. 19. 18. Now the next issue that requires consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to enhancement. 19. In this regard in the FAFO No. 126 of 2010 the tribunal has applied a multiplier of 13 upon the age of the parents. This exercise under taken by the tribunal is contrary to the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein it has held that in case of death, the multiplier applied is on the basis of the age of the deceased and not on the age of the parents of the deceased. In this regard, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Munna Lal Jain (supra) is relevant and the relevant portion is being reproduced hereinafter:- “The remaining question is only on multiplier. The High Court following Santosh Devi (supra), has taken 13 as the multiplier. Whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the dependants or that of the deceased, has been hanging fire for sometime; but that has been given a quietus by another three-Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari (supra). It was held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased.” 20. Thus, it would be seen that the tribunal has erred in applying a multiplier of 13 on the basis of the age of the parents whereas since the age of the deceased was mentioned in the claim petition as 20 years and the same also finds corroboration from the postmortem report bearing Paper No. C-13/4. Thus, the age of the deceased is taken to be 20 years upon which the appropriate multiplier shall be applicable as held in Sarla Verma case (supra). 21. The issue in all four appeals regarding the deduction made as well as the appropriate multiplier which is required to be adopted by the tribunal can be seen in light of the law which has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) which has also found the approval of the Constitution Bench in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). The relevant portion is being reproduced hereinafter:- “15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. The relevant portion is being reproduced hereinafter:- “15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. 21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 22. The next question regarding the addition of future prospects and the addition towards non-pecuniary damages towards loss of consortium and loss of estate and funeral expenses has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). The relevant portion is being reproduced for ready reference:- “Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot be certainty in addition of future prospects to the existing income unlike in the case of a person having a permanent job, yet the said perception does not really deserve acceptance. We are inclined to think that there can be some degree of difference as regards the percentage that is meant for or applied to in respect of the legal representatives who claim on behalf of the deceased who had a permanent job than a person who is self-employed or on a fixed salary. But not to apply the principle of standardization on the foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality. And, therefore, degree-test is imperative. Unless the degree-test is applied and left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair and inequitable. The degree-test has to have the inbuilt concept of percentage. Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc. an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable. The controversy does not end here. The question still remains whether there should be no addition where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Sarla Verma thinks it appropriate not to add any amount and the same has been approved in Reshma Kumari. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that salary does not remain the same. When a person is in a permanent job, there is always an enhancement due to one reason or the other. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that salary does not remain the same. When a person is in a permanent job, there is always an enhancement due to one reason or the other. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self-employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the courts.” 23. The law on the grant of non-pecuniary damages relating to consortium has been summarized by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, 2018 SCC Online SC 1546. The relevant portion is being reproduced hereinafter:- “In legal parlance “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses ‘spousal consortium’ and ‘parental consortium’ and ‘filial consortium’. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, co operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.” Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.” Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world over have recognized that the value of a child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium. Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under ‘Loss of Consortium’ as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra).” 24. Thus, in light of the above principles which has been settled this Court undertake the exercise of re-determining the compensation in respect of each of the above four cases. Claim Petition No. 236 of 2007 giving rise to FAFO No. 126 of 2010 (Smt. Suman and Others vs. Smt. Anisa Begum and Another) Income Rs. 3000/- per month Add: Future Prospect @ 40% Rs. 1200/- per month Net Income after deduction of 50% Rs. 2100/- per month Age 20 years Multiplier 18 Thus compensation payable: 2100 x 12 x 18 Rs. 4,53,600/- Add: Funeral Expenses Rs. 15000/- Add: Filial Consortium Rs. 40000/- Add: Loss of Estate Rs. 15000/- Thus total compensation payable shall be Rs. 5,23,600/- Alongwith interest @ 6% per annum as granted by the tribunal and this total sum shall be recoverable from the insurance company which is respondent no. 2 herein. 4,53,600/- Add: Funeral Expenses Rs. 15000/- Add: Filial Consortium Rs. 40000/- Add: Loss of Estate Rs. 15000/- Thus total compensation payable shall be Rs. 5,23,600/- Alongwith interest @ 6% per annum as granted by the tribunal and this total sum shall be recoverable from the insurance company which is respondent no. 2 herein. Claim Petition No. 235 of 2007 giving rise to FAFO No. 127 of 2010 (Smt. Gudia and Others vs. Smt. Anisa Begum and Another) Income Rs. 3000/- per month Add: Future Prospect @ 10% Rs. 300/- per month Net Income after deduction of 1/4 Rs. 2,47,52,100/- per month Age 55 years Multiplier 11 Thus compensation payable: 2475 x 11 x 12 Rs. 3,26,700/- Add: Funeral Expenses Rs. 15000/- Add: Spouse Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Add: Parental Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Add: Filial Consortium Add: Loss of Estate Rs. 15000/- Thus total compensation payable shall be Rs. 4,36,700/- Alongwith interest @ 6% per annum as granted by the tribunal and this total sum shall be recoverable from the insurance company which is respondent no. 2 herein. Claim Petition No. 244 of 2007 giving rise to FAFO No. 128 of 2010 (Smt. Somawati and Others vs. Smt. Anisa Begum and Another) Income Rs. 3000/- per month Add: Future Prospect @ 25% Rs. 750/- per month Net Income after deduction of 1/5 Rs. 3000/- per month Age 40 years Multiplier 15 Thus compensation payable: 3000 x 12 x 15 Rs. 5,40,000/- Add: Funeral Expenses Rs. 15000/- Add: Spouse Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Add: Parental Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Add: Filial Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Add: Loss of Estate Rs. 15000/- Thus total compensation payable shall be Rs. 6,90,000/- Alongwith interest @ 6% per annum as granted by the tribunal and this total sum shall be recoverable from the insurance company which is respondent no. 2 herein. Claim Petition No. 237 of 2007 giving rise to FAFO No. 212 of 2010 (Smt. Vidya Devi and Others vs. Smt. Anisa Begum and Another) Income Rs. 3000/- per month Add: Future Prospect @ 40% Rs. 1200/- per month Net Income after deduction of 1/3 Rs. 2800/- per month Age 35 years Multiplier 16 Thus compensation payable: 2800 x 12 x 16 Rs. 5,37,600/- Add: Funeral Expenses Rs. 15000/- Add: Spouse Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Add: Parental Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Add: Filial Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Add: Loss of Estate Rs. 15000/- Thus total compensation payable shall be Rs. 2800/- per month Age 35 years Multiplier 16 Thus compensation payable: 2800 x 12 x 16 Rs. 5,37,600/- Add: Funeral Expenses Rs. 15000/- Add: Spouse Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Add: Parental Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Add: Filial Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Add: Loss of Estate Rs. 15000/- Thus total compensation payable shall be Rs. 6,87,600/- Alongwith interest @ 6% per annum as granted by the tribunal and this total sum shall be recoverable from the insurance company which is respondent no. 2 herein. 25. The aforesaid amount as re-determined by this Court shall be payable by the respondent no. 2 and the respondent no. 2 shall be at liberty to recover the 50% of the aforesaid sum from the owner/insurer of the Matador in light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei (supra). 26. Subject to the above modification the award dated 09.09.2009 in all the four claim petition is affirmed. 27. With the aforesaid four First Appeals From Order stands partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.