JUDGMENT Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J. - Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and award passed in M.A.C.P. No. 518 of 2001 by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Jalgaon, the appellant / New India Assurance Company Limited has preferred this appeal by taking aid of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. On 10.06.2001 at about 10.00 a.m., Dangalrao along with his wife Mangalabai (since deceased) were proceeding to Parola on a motorcycle No. MH-19/K-2141. One truck no. MP-23/DA-3105 came from opposite direction driven a rash and negligent manner and gave dash to the motorcycle driven by Dangalrao. Dangalrao and his wife Mangalabai sustained serious injuries in the accident and died due to serious injuries. 3. Children and mother-in-law of late Mangalabai had filed claim petition for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Jalgaon and sought compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. The Member, M.A.C.T. after considering the facts and evidence on record was pleased to allow the claim partly and directed the owner / respondent no.1 and The New India Assurance Company Ltd. / respondent no.2 to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.3,17,935/- with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of claim as compensation inclusive of NFL amount. 5. The appellant / The New India Assurance Company Ltd. has challenged the impugned judgment and award mainly on two grounds; (i) it is a case of composite negligence and the tribunal has not considered this aspect, (ii) apportionment of compensation, proportionate to extent of negligence of each of the joint tortfeasors, not made. The multiplayer applied in this case as 17 is incorrect having regard to the age of the deceased in the age group of 31 to 35. 6. Heard Mr. M.R. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant / The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Respondent nos. 1 to 4 though duly served, remained absent. The claim petition stands dismissed against respondent no.5 / owner of the vehicle in view of the order passed by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court dated 21.10.2008. 7. Mr. M.R. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the husband of the deceased was driving the motorcycle. The deceased Mangalabai (wife) was on the pillion seat. The claim petition stands dismissed against respondent no.5 / owner of the vehicle in view of the order passed by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court dated 21.10.2008. 7. Mr. M.R. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the husband of the deceased was driving the motorcycle. The deceased Mangalabai (wife) was on the pillion seat. Both of them died in the accident occurred on 10.06.2001 on National Highway no.6 in the area of Musli shivar. He submitted that it was a head collusion between motorcycle and turck. The accident took place on the center of the road. The husband of the deceased was equally responsible for the accident. He was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner resulting into an accident. It is a case of composite negligence and the tribunal has not considered the aspect of composite negligence. The tribunal has not determined the apportionment of compensation proportionate to the extent of tortfeasors. The findings recorded by the tribunal are defective in the eye of law. 8. Mr. M.R. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant has placed his reliance on following citations in support of his argument. (i) Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC (Civil) 532. (ii) T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan and others reported in (2008) 3 SCC (Cri.) 738. (iii) Rambhau S/o Awadut Gawai and others Vs. Shivlal S/o shankarlal Belsare and others reported in 2021(2) Mh.L.J. 637 . (iv) Anita W/o Arun Memane Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmednagar and others reported in 2021 (2) Mh.L.J. 396 9. Mr. Deshmukh, further pointed out that the age of the deceased was 32 years as per postmortem report. As per the decision in Sarla Vermas case reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the multiplayer of 16 ought to have been applied while calculating the compensation. The tribunal has applied the multiplayer of 17, which is incorrect and the same needs to be corrected at the hands of the appellate court. He submitted that the tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% per annum, which is very much on higher side it needs to be reduced to 6% per annum. He urged to modify the impugned judgment and award. 10. He submitted that the tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% per annum, which is very much on higher side it needs to be reduced to 6% per annum. He urged to modify the impugned judgment and award. 10. Perused the impugned judgment and award passed in M.A.C.P. No. 518/2001 by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Jalgaon, the evidence on record and the Record and Proceedings of the tribunal. 11. It is not in dispute that Mangalabai since deceased and her husband Dangalrao (also deceased) were proceeding to Parola on a motorcycle No. MH-19/K-2141. The husband of the deceased was driving the motorcycle and deceased Mangalabai was on a pillion seat. Both of them died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 10.06.2001 due to fatal injuries. The respondent no.1 / original claimant no.1 happen to be mother-in-law and the applicant nos. 2 to 4 / original claimant nos. 2 to 4 happen to be children of the deceased. Two vehicles are involved in the accident. One is motorcycle no. MH-19/K-2141 and another one is a turck no. MP-23/DA-3105. On the date of accident, truck invloved in the accident was owned by respondent no.1 and insured with the appellant / The New India Assurance Company Limited. 12. According to Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant / The New India Assurance Company Limited, it is a case of composite negligence and there must be an apportionment of compensation proportionate to the extent of negligence of each of the tortfeasors. 13. In case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others (supra), the Honble Supreme Court has explained the terms of contributory and composite negligence. It is held by the Honble Supreme Court that, "in the case of contributory negligence, a person who has himself contributed to the accident cannot claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident to the extent of his own negligence. Extent of his negligence is required to be determined as damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries have to be reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. However, in the case of composite negligence, a person who has suffered has not contributed to the accident but due to the outcome of combination of negligence of two or more other persons. However, in the case of composite negligence, a person who has suffered has not contributed to the accident but due to the outcome of combination of negligence of two or more other persons. In such case, the plaintiff/claimant is entitled sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several". 14. It is further held by the Honble Supreme Court in the said decision that, "in the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between tortfeasors for making payment to the plaintiff is not permissible as the plaintiff/claimant has the right to recover the whole damages from any one of them the easiest targets/solvent defendant. It is not necessary to implead all joint tortfeasors and due to failure of impleadment of all joint tortfeasors, compensation cannot be reduced to the extent of negligence of non-impleaded tortfeasors. The liability of each and every joint tortfeasor vis-a-vis to the plaintiff/claimant cannot be bifurcated as it is joint and several liability". 15. In another citation relied upon by Mr. Deshmukh in case of T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan and others (supra), it is held by the Honble Supreme Court that, "in an accident involving two or more vehicles, where a third party (other than the drivers and/or owners of the vehicles involved) claims damages for loss or injuries, it is said that compensation is payable in respect of the composite negligence of the drivers of those vehicles. In case of contributory negligence when a person suffers injury partly due to negligence on part of another person or persons and parly as a result of his own negligence, then negligence on the part of injured which contributed to the accident is referred as his contributory negligence." 16. On perusing the record, more particularly written statement filed by the appellant/insurance company, it is clear that the plea of composite negligence is not specifically raised by the appellant. As a result thereof, no issue regarding composite negligence seems to have been framed by the tribunal. Even the plea of contributory negligence is not specifically raised by the appellant/insurance company in the written statement. Now plea of composite and contributory negligence is raised by Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company for the first time before the appellate court. The plea has no foundation in the written statement. Secondly, Mr. Even the plea of contributory negligence is not specifically raised by the appellant/insurance company in the written statement. Now plea of composite and contributory negligence is raised by Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company for the first time before the appellate court. The plea has no foundation in the written statement. Secondly, Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company attempted to show that the accident in question took place on the center of the road. However, the FIR and spot panchanama placed on record are not supporting to substantiate such contention. Even, the truck driver is not examined by the insurance company in order to support its case of composite negligence and/or contributory negligence. 17. Having regard to the above reasons and discussion, I do not find any merit in the argument advanced by Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant that it is either a case of contributory negligence or a composite negligence. Even one step ahead in view of citation in case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others (supra), in case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between the tortfeasors for making payment to the petitioner/claimant is not permissible as the petitioner/claimant has right to recover the whole damages from any one of them. It is difficult to accept the present case as a case of composite negligence in absence of necessary parties of the vehicle / motorcycle, which is another vehicle involved in the accident. It might be a case of composite negligence had above said parties would have been added to this claim. Resultantly, above referred citations relied upon by Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company are not any way helpful to the case of the appellant. 18. Now coming to second ground regarding selection of multiplayer. There is no birth certificate of deceased on record to calculate exact age of the deceased on the date of accident. The tribunal has accepted the age of deceased as shown in the postmortem report. As per the postmortem report, the age of the deceased is 32 years. According to second schedule of Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the tribunal has applied the multiplayer of 17 in this case. 19. According to Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company, multiplayer of 16 ought to have been applied in view of citation in case of Sarla Verma (supra). According to second schedule of Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the tribunal has applied the multiplayer of 17 in this case. 19. According to Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company, multiplayer of 16 ought to have been applied in view of citation in case of Sarla Verma (supra). On going through the citation in case of Sarla Verma (supra), more particularly regarding selection of multiplayer scale for the age group of 31 to 35 years, the multiplayer of 16 needs to be applied. However, in this case, there is no cogent evidence throwing light on the exact birth date of the deceased so as to calculate the age of the deceased. There is no point in reducing the multiplayer from 17 to 16 in absence of any age proof of the deceased. The tribunal has applied the multiplayer of 17 having regard to the facts of the case and the age of the deceased in the age group of 31 to 35 years on the basis of postmortem report. After lapse of 15 years from the date of impugned judgment and award, it would not be just and proper to reduce the multiplayer from 17 to 16 in view of the peculiar facts of the case in hand. Hardly it is a question of Rs.10,000/-, which may be reduced by selecting multiplayer of 16. 19. Now coming to last ground of argument advanced by Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant regarding interest. The tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum having regard to the rate of interest prevailing at that time in the year 2005. Mr. Deshmukh has referred the citations in case of Rambhau S/o Awadut Gawai and others Vs. Shivlal S/o shankarlal Belsare and others (supra) and Anita W/o Arun Memane Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmednagar and others (supra). In both the cases, relied upon by Mr. Deshmukh, rate of interest is not reduced from 9% to 6% per annum. In case of Rambhau S/o Awadut Gawai and others Vs. Shivlal S/o shankarlal Belsare and others (supra), this court while allowing the claim petition, and granting compensation, directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Both the citations referred by Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant are not any way helpful to the appellant. In case of Rambhau S/o Awadut Gawai and others Vs. Shivlal S/o shankarlal Belsare and others (supra), this court while allowing the claim petition, and granting compensation, directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Both the citations referred by Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant are not any way helpful to the appellant. The position in the year of passing of award by the tribunal plays important and vital role. In the year 2005, the rates of interest for fixed deposit was on higher side. Now rate of interest is reduced as per the direction issued by the Reserve Bank of India. It may not be appropriate to reduce the rate of interest from 9% to 6% after lapse of more than 15 years. It may slightly affect on total amount of compensation. 20. Having regard to the above reasons and discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal. ORDER (i) The appeal stands dismissed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed in M.A.C.P. No. 518/2001 by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Jalgaon is hereby confirmed. (iii) Record and Proceedings be sent to the Tribunal. (iv) The amount of compensation, if lying in this Court, the Registry to transfer the same to the tribunal for payment thereof to the claimants as per the operative part of the impugned judgment. (v) The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (vi) Civil application for stay stands disposed of in view of disposal of appeal.