JUDGMENT : M.F.A.No.4999/2019 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, whereas, M.F.A.No.9992/2018 has been filed by the insurance company under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) against the judgment dated 25.08.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Since, both the appeals arise out of the same accident and from the same judgment, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 02.04.2015, the deceased Khazi Saleemuddin was proceeding in a car bearing Registration No.KA-03-MK-5044 near Halehalli Gate, National Highway 13. At that time, the driver of the car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner in order to overtake a lorry and dashed against a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the KSRTC' for short) which was coming from the opposite direction. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. 3. The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of accident and was engaged as a wood planning worker and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/-per month. It was further pleaded that accident could have been avoided if the driver of the KSRTC bus had put in efforts to avoid the occurrence of the accident. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.43,60,000/-along with interest. 4. The Respondent No.1 viz., the owner of the car and 4 were proceeded ex parte. The Respondent No.2 viz., the insurer of the car filed written statement in which inter alia it was pleaded that the insurance policy issued in respect of the car covered only third party risks and not the risk of accident to the occupants of the car and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. The Respondent No.3 viz., the Divisional controller of KSRTC filed written statement in which, inter alia, it was pleaded that the accident did not occur on account of negligence of the driver of the bus and that the liability to pay compensation, if any, has to be fastened on the Respondent No.5 as the bus was validly insured with the Respondent No.5. The Respondent No.5 viz., the insurer of the bus, also filed written statement, in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. It was pleaded that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the driver of the car. The age, avocation and income of the deceased was also denied and it was pleaded that the claim of the claimants is exorbitant and excessive. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The respondents examined GB Raghavendrappa (RW1), Harsih GR (RW2), DR Basavaraj (RW3) and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of the composite negligence of the driver of the car as well as the driver of the KSRTC bus who were liable for causing of the accident to the extent of 70% and 30% respectively. It was further held, that as a result of aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,86,200/-along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that though the Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of the composite negligence of the driver of the car as well as the driver of the KSRTC bus, the Tribunal erred in holding that the claimants are entitled to recover only Rs.2,86,200/-i.e. 30 percent of the compensation from the respondent No.5, viz., the insurer of the KSRTC when the claimants are entitled to recover the entire compensation from respondent No.5 viz., the insurer of the KSRTC as the liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-per month and in any case, the same ought to have been taken as per the guidelines framed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. It is further submitted that the sums awarded under the heads ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘funeral expenses’ are on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited And Ors., 2015 (9) SCC 273 . 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurer of the KSRTC Bus submitted that the accident occurred wholly on account of negligence of the driver of the car and that the Tribunal erred in assigning negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC Bus to the extent of 30%. In this regard our attention has been invited to Ex.P2. Complaint, Ex.P5 Spot sketch, Ex-P1 FIR, EX-P8 IMV Report and the evidence of RW3 Basavaraj. It is further submitted that no evidence has been adduced by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased before the Tribunal and that the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.6,000/-per month. Learned counsel for the insurer of the car submitted that the insurance issued in respect of the car is not only policy and that the insurance policy does not cover the risk in respect of the occupants of the car. 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The Supreme Court in ‘MANGALA RAM VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.’, (2018) 5 SCC 656 has held that the proceeding under the Act has to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and claimant is not required to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled in law that when an accident happens through the combined negligence of two persons, he alone is liable to the other who had the last opportunity of avoiding the accident by reasonable care, and who then knew or ought to have known of the danger caused by the other’s negligence. [See: SALAMOND ON THE LAW OF TORTS, TWELFTH EDITION 1957 PAGE 439-441]. [See: SALAMOND ON THE LAW OF TORTS, TWELFTH EDITION 1957 PAGE 439-441]. The general rule is that the vehicle should be driven at a speed which enables the driver to stop within the limits of his vision and failure to do this will almost always result in the driver being held, in whole or in part, responsible for the collision. [See: CLERK AND LINDSELL ON TORTS, ELEVENTH EDITION, 1954 PAGES 368-370]. It is equally well settled legal proposition that burden of proving negligence lies on the person who alleges it. The Supreme Court in ‘MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. LAKSHMAN IYER AND ORS.’ AIR 2003 SC 4182 held that the crucial question in case of contributory negligence is whether either party could by reasonable care, have avoided the consequences of other’s negligence. The finding with regard to contributory negligence has to be recorded on the basis of proper consideration of the pleadings and legal evidence adduced by both the parties and the same cannot be based merely on police records.[See: ‘MINUROUT VS. SATYA PRADYUMNA MOHAPATRA’, (2013) 10 SCC 695 AND ‘SARALA DEVI VS. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,’, (2014) 15 SCC 450 ]. It is well settled in law that burden to prove breach of duty on the part of the victim lies on the insurance company and the insurance company has to discharge the burden. [SEE: ‘USHA RAJ KHOWA VS. PARAMOUNT INDUSTRIES’, (2009) 14 SCC 71 ]. 9. Admittedly, PW1 is not an eye witness to the accident. RW3 Basavraj, who is the driver of the KSRTC bus and an eye witness to the accident has stated in his evidence that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver, who drove his car on the wrong side of the road with high speed in order to overtake a lorry. Ex P1 FIR, EX P2 complaint, as well as Ex P3 charge sheet have been filed against the driver of the car to the effect that the drivers of the car in order to overtake a lorry in a rash and negligent manner, traversed the median, proceeded on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the oncoming KSRTC Bus. The aforesaid fact is corroborated by Ex P4 spot mazhar and Ex P5 spot sketch which disclose that the accident took place on the right side of the road across the median about 8 feet away from the edge of the road. Ex P8 IMV report discloses that the KSRTC Bus has sustained damage to the front left side whereas the front side of the car has been completely damaged. From the aforesaid evidence on record an inference can drawn that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the driver of the car who drove the same in a negligent manner on the wrong side of the road in order to overtake a lorry. However, negligence to the extent of 10% has to be assigned on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus in as much as the accident could have been avoided by swerving the bus towards the left as evident from Ex.P5 Spot Sketch which indicates that there is a distance of about 8 feet from the edge of the road and the evidence of RW3 Basavraj who has stated in his evidence that he saw the car overtaking the lorry. Therefore, we set aside the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the negligence and hold that the accident occurred on account of the composite negligence of the driver of the car as well as the driver of the KSRTC bus who were responsible for the causing of the accident to the extent of 90% and 10% respectively. 10. Now we may advert to the quantum of compensation. Admittedly, the claimants have not produced any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that deceased at the time of accident was aged about 24 years and was engaged in wood work. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased is to be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. Since the accident is of the year 2015, notional income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.9,000/-per month. 11. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS’ AIR 2017 SC 5157 , 40% of the amount has to be added on account of future prospects. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.12,600/-. 11. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS’ AIR 2017 SC 5157 , 40% of the amount has to be added on account of future prospects. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.12,600/-. Since, the deceased is a bachelor, therefore, half of the amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.6,300/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 24 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of ‘18’ has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to (Rs.6,300x12x18) i.e., Rs.13,60,800/-on account of loss of dependency. 12. In view of laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU RAM & ORS.’ (2018) 18 SCC 130 , which has been subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in ‘UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR AND ORS.’ 2020 AIR SC 3070 each of the claimant’s are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/-on account of loss of consortium and loss love and affection. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.80,000/-. In addition, claimants are held entitled to Rs.30,000/-on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimants are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.14,70,800/-. Needless to state that the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the payment is made. 13. Now we may advert to the issue with regard to the liability to pay the compensation. The Supreme Court in KHENYEI Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS supra has held that in case of composite negligence, the claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of the joint tortfeasors is joint and several. It has been further held that determination of the inter se extent of composite negligence between the joint tortfeasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of the payment to the claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. 14. It has been further held that determination of the inter se extent of composite negligence between the joint tortfeasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of the payment to the claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. 14. In the instant case the accident has occurred on account of the composite negligence of the driver of the car as well as the driver of the KSRTC bus. Therefore, the respondent no.1 viz., the owner of the car, the respondent no.3 viz., the KSRTC and the respondent no.5 viz., insurer of the KSRTC bus, being the joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally held liable to pay the aforesaid total amount of compensation. The claimants are entitled to recover the aforesaid amount of compensation from any of the aforesaid joint tortfeasor. The respondent no.5 being the insurer of the KSRTC bus is liable to indemnify the respondent no.3 & 4 in paying the compensation. It is made clear that in case the claimants recover the entire amount of compensation from one of the aforesaid joint tortfeasors, such joint tortfeasor shall be at liberty to recover the sum from the other joint tortfeasor to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. Accordingly the appeals are disposed of.