ORDER 1. These two appeals under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 are directed against the award dated 5.8.2016 passed in Motor Vehicle Claim Case No. 57/2011. 2. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1296/2016 is by the Insurance Company. Whereas, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1125/2016 is by the claimants. 3. The claim for compensation of Rs. 40,70,496/- was in lieu of death of Ram Sevak. On 23.3.2011, the victim along with Santosh Kumar Saxena, on his motorcycle, was coming from Gwalior to Morena when in front of Kareel Baba Dev Sthan, Agra-Bombay Road, respondent No. 1, riding motorcycle bearing registration No. MP06/MG8111 rashly and negligently, dashed at their motorcycle. As a result whereof the victim sustained injuries to head, hand and legs. He was admitted at JA Hospital, Gwalior where during treatment, he succumbed to injuries. Police report at Police Station Civil Lines, Morena was lodged on 17.6.2011 whereon Crime No. 269/2011 for an offence under section 304-A IPC was registered against respondent No. 4, who was arrested and is tried for the said offence. Relevant it is to note that before lodging of complaint there was 'merg' intimation (Ex P-7) on 23.3.2011 at 7.30 PM by Doctor Incharge, Emergency, J.A. Hospital informing Station House Officer, Police Station Kampoo. The victim was employed as Assistant Grade III in the office of Civil Surgeon cum Hospital Superintendent, District Morena in grade Rs. 5200-20,200 + Grade Pay Rs. 1900/- and was having gross salary Rs. 13,706/-. The net salary after deduction of Rs. 200/- towards GIS and Rs. 2000/- towards GPF was Rs. 11,506/- as per certificate Ex.P-11. The date of birth of the victim recorded in his service book as per Ex. P-11 was 1.6.1962. 4. Respondent No. 4 denied as to the said accident was caused due to his negligence. He further stated that his motorcycle (i.e. offending motor cycle) was insured with the present appellant. Whereas, the appellant-Insurance Company took the defence that the rider of offending vehicle was not having valid licence and the motorcycle was plied de hors the policy. It has also stated that the accident was due to the collective negligence. 5. He further stated that his motorcycle (i.e. offending motor cycle) was insured with the present appellant. Whereas, the appellant-Insurance Company took the defence that the rider of offending vehicle was not having valid licence and the motorcycle was plied de hors the policy. It has also stated that the accident was due to the collective negligence. 5. The Trial Court on the finding that the owner of offending vehicle having admitted the accident, though he denied his negligence; but relying on the deposition of PW2 Balram Sharma who has an eye-witness, held that it was because of the negligence of the rider of offending motor cycle that the accident was caused. Paragraph 8 to 11 records such finding which when tested on the anvil of the evidence on record nullify the contentions on behalf of the Appellant-Insurance Company that the offending vehicle was planted. 6. The decision in Anil and others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2018 (1) MPWN 59 = 2018 ACJ 729 relied by the Appellant-Insurance Company turn on its own facts whereas it was noticed that the place of death of the victim who was allegedly run over by the tractor belonged to his brother, was at the Hospital Gurgaon or at GH, Kotputli. The complaint was lodged on 15.2.1995 whereas the accident was of 12.01.1995. There was no post-mortem report. 7. In the case at hand, there was 'merg' intimation on the date of accident i.e. 23.3.2011, the post-mortem was conducted on 24.3.2011 (Ex P-16). The cause of death as per doctor's opinion was due to cardio respiratory failure as a result of head injury in road traffic accident. Though FIR was registered on 17.6.2011. However, event preceded before the registration of FIR leaves no iota of doubt that the accident was caused by the offending vehicle. Even the owner of offending vehicle did not dispute that the accident was with his motorcycle. Though he denies his negligence. 8. Though FIR was registered on 17.6.2011. However, event preceded before the registration of FIR leaves no iota of doubt that the accident was caused by the offending vehicle. Even the owner of offending vehicle did not dispute that the accident was with his motorcycle. Though he denies his negligence. 8. As regard to contention that there was composite negligence, the Claims Tribunal dwelt upon the same in paragraph No. 12 of the award in following terms: ^^12- bl fook|d ds laca/k esa] vkosnd lk{kh cyjke 'kekZ vkŒlkŒ&2 us vius dFku esa ;g crk;k gS fd nq?kZVuk fnukad dks e`rd jkelsod 'kekZ larks"k dqekj lDlsuk dh eksVjlkbZfdy ij cSBdj Xokfy;j ls eqjSuk vk jgk Fkk] rc vukosnd Øekad&1 us lUrks"k dqekj lDlsuk dh eksVjlkbZfdy esa VDdj ekjdj mDr nq?kZVuk dkfjr dhA bl Ádkj lkQ gS fd] e`rd jkelsod dh ekeys esa dksbZ ;ksxnk;h ykijokgh ugha Fkh cfYd eksVjlkbZfdy pkyd lUrks"k dqekj lDlsuk vkSj nks"kh eksVj lkbZfdy ds pkyd vukosnd Øekad&1 vfuy dqekj 'kekZ dh lkewfgd ykijokgh ds dkj.k Á'uxr eksVj nq?kZVuk gqbZ FkhA egs'k ek=s cuke v[kys'k 2008 ¼2½ ,eŒihŒ,pŒVhŒ 163 MhŒchŒ esa ;g Áfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd] lkewfgd ykijokgh ls ?kfVr eksVj nq?kZVuk ekeyksa esa nkosnkj viuh Pokbl ij nksuksa gh okguksa ds pkyd] Lokeh vkSj chek dEiuh ds fo#) vFkok muesa ls fdlh ,d ds fo#) nkok is'k dj ldrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vfèkdj.k bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapk gS fd gLrxr ekeys esa vko';d i{kdkjksa ds val;kstu dk nks"k ugha gSA okn Á'u Øekad&3 rn~uqlkj vkosndx.k ds i{k esa rFkk vukosndx.k ds fo:) fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA** 9. In Mahesh Matre and others v. Akhlesh Thakur and others, 2008 (2) M.P.H.T. 163 (DB), reliance whereas is placed by the Tribunal, the Division Bench of this High Court held : "13. From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is quite clear that where the liability is joint and several it is the choice of the claimant to claim from the owner, driver and the insurer of both the vehicles or any one of them. The entire of amount of compensation on account of the injuries or death can be imposed on the owner, driver and insurer of that vehicle. In view of the aforesaid, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that as the owner, driver and insurer of the jeep have not been made parties, therefore, 50% is to be deducted, is absolutely unsustainable. In view of the aforesaid, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that as the owner, driver and insurer of the jeep have not been made parties, therefore, 50% is to be deducted, is absolutely unsustainable. The liability in entirety can be imposed on the insurer of the truck. Therefore, the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants has to be made good by the insurer of the truck." 10. Thus the contention regarding composite negligence and effect thereon that the Appellant Insurance Company alone cannot be held liable, also fails. 11. In view whereof the appeal perferred by the Insurance Company fails and is dismissed. 12. The claimants have also filed appeal being dissatisfied with the quantum. 13. Paragraph No. 26 to 28 of the award dealt with the loss of dependency in the following terms: ^^26- pwafd Ádj.k esa e`rd dh Áfrekg vk; 13]700@& :i;s fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gS] ftldk 1@3 e`rd jkelsod ds Loa; ds [kpsZ ds fy;s dkVk tkdj vkfJrrk dh Áfrekg gkfu 9134@& :i;s curh gSA blfy;s ekuuh; U;k;n`"Vkar **ljyk oekZ** mijksDr esa fn;s x;s fn'kkfunsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj vkosndx.k dks 9]134 xq.kk 12 xq.kk 13 ¾ 14]24]904@& ¼pkSng yk[k pkSchl gtkj ukS lkS pkj½ #i;s vkfJrrk dh gkfu gqbZ gSA 27- mijksDr ds vfrfjDr] vkosndx.k xzkeandpju flg dq'kokg okyh xyh ds'ko dkWyksuh eqjSuk ds jgus okys gSaA e`rd jkelsod dk iksLVekVZe xtjktk gkWLihVy ftyk Xokfy;j esa gqvk gSA bl Ádkj vkosndx.k e`rd jkelsod ds 'ko dks 'ko x`g ls vius ?kj ykus ds fy;s VªkaliksZVs'ku gsrq 5]000@& :i;s ÁkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA 28- mDr ds vfrfjDr] jkts'k fo#) jktohj 2013 ,ŒlhŒtsŒ 1403 ls ekxZn'kZu ysrs gq;s] vkosndx.k e`rd jkelsod dh vaR;sf"V ds en esa 25000@& :i;s ¼iPphl gtkj :i;s½ dh ,d eqLr jkf'k ÁkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA mDr ds vfrfjDr vkosfndk csok xaxknsoh lgp;Z dh gkfu ds en esa 1 yk[k :i;s ÁkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gSaA bl çdkj vkonsdx.k dqy 14]24]904 $ 5000 $ 25000 $ 100000 ¾ 15]54]904@& :i;s dh jkf'k ¼iUæg yk[k pkSvu gtkj ukS lkS pkj :i;s½ {kfriwfrZ ds :i esa ÁkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA** 14. Thus, except that 30% towards future prospects as per the mandate in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi and others: 2018 (1) JLJ 200 (SC)= 2017 ACJ 2700 ["61 (iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax."] the Claims Tribunal is justified in awarding Rs. 15,54,904. In view whereof the Appellants/Claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation adding 30% towards future prospects: Income Rs. 13,700/- monthly (Annual income Rs. 13,700/- x 12) 1,64,400/- Add 30 % of income towards future prospects = Rs. 49,320/- (Rs. 1,64,400 + 49,320) 2,13,720/- Deduct 1/4 thus (Rs. 53,430/-) (Rs. 2,13,720 - Rs. 53,430/-) 1,60,290/- Multiplier of 13 (1,60,290 x 13) 20,83,770/- Conventional Heads (Rs. 5,000 + Rs. 25000/- + Rs. 100000 = Rs. 1,30,000/-) 1,30,000/- Total entitlement (Rs. 20,83,770/- + 1,30,000/- = Rs. 22,13,770) Difference (22,13,770 - 15,54,904) Rs. 6,58,866/- 15. The claimants would, thus, be entitled for further Rs. 6,58,866/- (Rupees Six Lac Fifty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Six only). The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9% as awarded by the Claims Tribunal from the date of filing of claim i.e. 4.7.2011 till it is paid. The amount shall be paid to appellant No. 1 Smt. Gangadevi, Wd/o Late Ram Sevak through account payee cheque through net banking. 16. In the result, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1296/2016 filed by the Insurance-Company is dismissed. Whereas, the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1125/2016 by the claimants is partly allowed to the extent above. No costs.