JUDGMENT : S. Hukato Swu, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and award dated 03-06-2014 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Dibrugarh in MAC Case No. 87 of 2010. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the claimant Sri. Jagdish Prasad Singh filed a claim petition for the demise of his son Prabhakar Singh who met with an accident on 13-06-2010 on NH-37 at Bongaon wherein, a truck bearing registration No. PB-11/AN-9219 involved in a head on collision with Night Super Bus bearing registration No. NL/07D-004 and the victim died out of the injuries sustained therein. It is an admitted fact that both the vehicles are insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited and the policy in question are both operative and covered at the time of the accident. 3. The deceased was a Mechanical Engineer serving under the Gammon India Company Private Ltd. in the Bogibil Project with monthly salary of Rs. 25,000/-. The case was registered under Dergaon Police Station on 13-06-2010 vide G.R. Case No. 60 of 2010 and the FIR reflects that the vehicle met with the accident due to composite negligence of the parties. The learned MACT adjudicated upon the claim petition and finally came to the conclusion that the driver of the bus NL/07D-004 which was covered under the policy No. 53020931100100000969 was responsible for the accident and fixed liability on the said offending vehicle by awarding compensation of Rs. 30,70,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing till realization. The age of the deceased was claimed to be 26 and his income was considered at Rs. 20,000/- P.M. 4. Dissatisfied with the award, the appellant, New India Assurance Company Limited represented by the learned counsel, Mr. 30,70,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing till realization. The age of the deceased was claimed to be 26 and his income was considered at Rs. 20,000/- P.M. 4. Dissatisfied with the award, the appellant, New India Assurance Company Limited represented by the learned counsel, Mr. R.K. Bhatra has made a plea for modification of the award on the ground that : (i) the salary of the deceased has not been exhibited and proved, (ii) if the salary is to be accepted, as claimed by the claimant, then proportionate tax should be levied prior to consideration of the award, (iii) the whole evidence shows that it was a case of composite negligence and award should have been apportionated on the basis of 50/50 liability upon both the truck and the bus involved in the incident and (iv) he has claimed that the claimant has to prove negligence for claim under the Motor Vehicle Act. However, the principal witness, who appeared as PW 2, as per the statement recorded, is only a hearsay witness. He came to the place of incident only after the accident had occurred and he heard about the accident through 3rd party which cannot be considered as principal evidence under the law of evidence, being a hearsay witness. He has also contested the authenticity of Exhibit-3 which is the certificate i.e. referred by the Company generated through computer and seal however not signed by any person from the concerned authority issuing the certificate. Hence, it is not to be relied upon as evidence for computing compensation. 5. Learned counsel has also argued that Section 65B of the Evidence Act provides condition for proving of electronic document which has not been complied with hence, the Exhibit-3 which contains the certificate of salary of the deceased should not be taken as a piece of evidence. He has stated that the compensation has to be either modified or interfered with as deemed fit. 6. Appearing for the claimant, learned counsel, Mr. DCC Phukan has responded to the plea that the appellant's company has not objected the certificate at the trial stage and as such, it is not proper to raise the evidential issue at this stage since the learned Tribunal had acted upon the fact that the opposite party has not raised any issue at that relevant point of time. DCC Phukan has responded to the plea that the appellant's company has not objected the certificate at the trial stage and as such, it is not proper to raise the evidential issue at this stage since the learned Tribunal had acted upon the fact that the opposite party has not raised any issue at that relevant point of time. Thus, opportunity for objecting on evidence was lost and it cannot be a ground for denying compensation to the claimant. The claimant could have taken appropriate steps at that stage to fulfill the condition. 7. On the issue of income tax, if levied, where the income of the victim is subject to income tax, learned counsel has raised no objection and computing of income tax may be modified accordingly. Answering to the issue of composite negligence, the learned counsel for the claimant has responded that since both the truck and the bus are insured with the same company i.e. New India Assurance Company, it should not be a hindrance in shifting the liability or fixing the liability upon the same company when the case of composite negligence arose between the two vehicle. 8. Answering to the certificate which is generated through computer, it is an acceptable document which is accepted as evidence and needs no discussion. The issue of proving of negligence and matter related to eye witness, it is replied that there is police report, there is clear medical evidence which suggests that there was indeed an accident and this is not a criminal trial where evidence beyond reasonable doubt is to be established. It is a social beneficial legislation and as such, the arguments are never entertained in motor accident claim petition. 9. On hearing the parties, apparently, all the questions raised by the appellant have been satisfactorily replied by the defence counsel. 10. The only question which remains to be resolved is that inspite of clear evidence which is shown on record that there was composite negligence, the liability which is fixed on the offending bus alone is a question to be answered. In the absence of other parties in the pleading, it would be unfair to determine the extent of liability upon the parties who are joint tort feasors. In the absence of other parties in the pleading, it would be unfair to determine the extent of liability upon the parties who are joint tort feasors. It is a settled law that in a composite negligence, the claimant can exercise option of making claim from any of the tort feasors or anyone of them or jointly. The tort feasors are jointly and severally liable. However, in the instant case, neither the claimant has made the other truck a party to the claim petition nor has the respondents made the other truck a party for determining the extent of liability amongst them. Under the circumstance, it would not be appropriate to determine the liability of a party without giving him an opportunity of being heard. At the same time, it is not reasonable to settle 100% liability on the appellant in the face of the evidences that was brought before the tribunal which clearly shows that it was a composite negligence. Hence, for the above stated reasons, it is considered reasonable to allow 50% of the claim amount from the present appellant after modification of the salary by deduction of tax. The final ratio can be calculated on bringing the other party to answer the claim in all fairness. It may be argued that it is unnecessary considering that both the vehicles are ensured with the same party and it would be a futile exercise. However, we must keep in mind that the pleading of the other party is unpredictable and hence, it will be inappropriate to apportionate or award compensation without hearing the other parties. 11. With the above observations and on partial modification, 50% of the claim compensation is awarded and computed as under:- Salary is fixed at Rs.20,000/- Add 50% for future prospect From salary which is Rs.5,000/- Multiplied by month of the year 12 Multiplier is 17 Annual contribution to the family and loss of dependency is Rs.10,000+50x12x17=Rs.30,60,000/- Will be less 10% tax Rs.3,06,000/- Rs.27,54,000/- 50% of claim amount is Rs.27,54,000/2 Rs.13,77,000/- And loss of consortium Rs.5,000/- Add funeral expenditure Rs.2,500/- Loss of estate Rs.2,500/- Total 13,87,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs eighty seven thousand) only New India Assurance Company is directed to pay Rs. 13,87,000/- to the claimant. However, it is found on record that the appellant has already paid Rs. 15,35,000/- to the claimant. Hence, their liability is discharged. 13,87,000/- to the claimant. However, it is found on record that the appellant has already paid Rs. 15,35,000/- to the claimant. Hence, their liability is discharged. The excess payment shall be recovered to the appellant by the claimant respondent. Claimant respondent is however, at liberty to file a fresh petition for the claim of remaining claim amount from the other offending truck, as discussed above. The appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. LCRs be remitted back.