JUDGMENT 1. The appellants have fled these appeals under Sec. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the MV Act") challenging the judgments and awards dtd. 18/12/2010 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-3, Nagpur in Claim Petition Nos. 249 of 2000 and 262 of 2000. By the impugned judgments and awards, the learned Member has awarded compensation of Rs.4,95,000.00 and Rs.86,220.00 along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from 3/3/2010 till realization of the said amounts in both claim petitions respectively. Since both these appeals arise out of the same accident, are disposed of by common judgment. 2. The brief facts are as under : Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 i.e., original claimants are children of deceased Narsimalu s/o. Ashappa Sahare and Timalla w/o. Narsimalu Sahare. Deceased Narsimalu was 50 years old while Timalla was 35 at the time of accident. They were employed with the Railway Department and were earning Rs.5000.00 and Rs.4,500.00 p.m. respectively. On 28/1/2000, deceased Narsimalu was driving a motorcycle bearing No. MH 31/ AK-68 from Kalmeshwar to Wardha. Deceased Timalla was a pillion rider. According to petitioners, on the said date and on Wardha Nagpur Road near Paunar, the vehicle bearing No. 98-D-113485Y owned by the Military came from opposite direction in a high speed, and rashly and negligently dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of which, both i.e. deceased Narsimalu and Timalla died on the spot. Respondent No.1 i.e. appellant No.1 is the owner of offending vehicle while Respondent No.2 i.e. appellant No.2 is the driver. The original claimants accordingly fled claim petitions for grant of compensation under Sec. 166 of the MV Act. The owner of vehicle and driver denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. 98-D-113485Y. According to them, it was due to negligence of the deceased Narsimalu, who himself had dashed against the military van, leading to the accident in question. Upon considering the evidence on record, the tribunal held that there was contributory negligence to the extent of 80% on the part of deceased Narsimalu whereas 20% on the part of driver of the military van bearing No. 98-D- 113485Y. Since it was the case of composite negligence, learned Member was pleased to allow the claim petition of claimants in respect of death of their mother, namely, Timalla and partly allowed the petition with proportionate costs. Since it was the case of composite negligence, learned Member was pleased to allow the claim petition of claimants in respect of death of their mother, namely, Timalla and partly allowed the petition with proportionate costs. Both the judgments and awards are under challenge in these appeals. 3. Mrs.Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the learned Member has committed grave error in not appreciating the fact that though the crime was registered against appellant No.2-driver but ultimately after conclusion of the investigation, "A Summary Report" was fled. Similarly, in departmental enquiry, appellant No.2- driver was not found guilty. Having regard to the evidence on record that the accident in question took place because of negligence of the deceased Narsimalu, learned Member ought to have dismissed the claim of the respondents herein. As far as First Appeal No. 171 of 2012 is concerned, according to learned counsel, in Claim Petition No. 262 of 2000, it has been held by learned Member that appellant No.2 - driver was contributorily negligent to the extent of 20% and this being so and as also since the evidence is same on record, then in Claim Petition No. 249 of 2000 learned Member ought to have held similarly. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals deserve to be allowed, argued learned counsel. 4. Mr. Mandhare, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported both impugned judgments and awards. However, learned counsel emphasized that no just compensation has been awarded and urged that the respondents may be given just compensation. Learned counsel also placed reliance in Khenyei Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. 2015 (4) MLJ 364 and Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Nagpur Branch Versus Manju wd/o Vikram Choudhary and others 2021 (3) AIR Bom. R 330. 5. From the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, it appears that learned counsel is trying to bring home the points on two material aspects, namely, since pursuant to the registration of FIR against appellant No.2 and the investigation resulted in fling "A Summary Report" and secondly, in the departmental enquiry as well appellant No. 2 was not found negligent vis-a-vis the accident in question. Learned Member ought to have given due consideration to these material facts and more particularly when necessary documents to that effect were produced on record. 6. Learned Member ought to have given due consideration to these material facts and more particularly when necessary documents to that effect were produced on record. 6. I have carefully gone through the evidence led by both the parties and as also the impugned judgments of learned Member. 7. Learned Member has extensively dealt with all contentions as are raised before me and as also were raised before learned Member in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment. Learned Member did not attach any evidentiary value to the documents, namely, Exhibits 74, 75, 77 and 78. 8. Exhibit 74 is a letter written by P.S.O. Sevagram to the Commandant, Central Ammunition Depot, Pulgaon informing that the investigation has been stopped and as no charge- sheet is required to be fled, fnal summary "A' has been fled. However, since the police ofcer was not examined by the appellants, learned Member refused to take into consideration the said letter (Exhibit 74). Exhibit 75 is a sketch of spot of incident. Exhibits 77 and 78 are the copies of the Court of enquiry in the proceedings related thereto. Since the appellants had not examined the concerned Military Ofcer, who conducted the Court of enquiry, learned Member refused to attach any evidentiary value to those documents. Similar is the case with Exhibit 75. 9. In my considered opinion, learned Member did not commit any illegality in refusing to accept the above noted documents inasmuch as those documents were not proved to the satisfaction of learned Member in accordance with law. It Summary Report" was accepted or not by the concerned Court having jurisdiction. 10. I have also gone through the evidence of appellant No. 2, who was the sole witness and against whom FIR, based on his statement, came to be recorded. 11. Before that, I may note from the spot panchnama (Exhibit 59) that the width of the tar road was about 34 ft. on which the accident in question took place. 12. It is the evidence of appellant No.2 that he was proceeding to Kamptee from Pulgaon in his military vehicle having No. 98D 113485Y. Deceased Narsimalu and his wife were coming from Nagpur side towards Wardha on a motorcycle. Deceased Narsimalu was driving the said motorcycle and his deceased wife Timalla was a pillion rider. Deceased Narsimalu was having a red shawl on his person while driving his motorcycle. Deceased Narsimalu and his wife were coming from Nagpur side towards Wardha on a motorcycle. Deceased Narsimalu was driving the said motorcycle and his deceased wife Timalla was a pillion rider. Deceased Narsimalu was having a red shawl on his person while driving his motorcycle. It is his further evidence that he saw that shawl of deceased Narsimalu was moving freely in the air while he was driving the motorcycle and when his motorcycle came at some distance near his vehicle, he tried to put the shawl in the right place by his own hand. While doing so, shawl instead of being placed right in the order, fell on his face. As a result of which, driver of the motorcycle lost complete balance as he could not see anything and the vehicle started coming towards military vehicle driven by him. It is his further evidence that the speed of military vehicle was around 25-30 kms per hour and he made serious efforts to save the motorcycle riders but the motorcycle dashed into the hind side of the truck and they fell down. 13. I have already noted from the spot panchnama that the road on which the accident took place is about 34 ft. in width. What is strikingly apparent from the evidence of appellant No.2 is that he was observing very carefully the movement of motorcycle of deceased Narsimalu and as also the fact that shawl on the person of deceased Narsimalu was not only moving freely in the air but had obstructed the latter's view. Despite seeing that the said shawl was not only obstructing the view of deceased Narsimalu but at the same time, although, according to him, the speed of his vehicle was around 25-30 kms per hour, he ought to have anticipated imminent threat of motorcycle being hit to his vehicle and therefore, he should have stopped his vehicle immediately as it was not difcult for him having regard to the speed of his vehicle with which he was driving. Therefore, the observation of learned Member is quite right. When appellant No.2 observed that, there was an opportunity to avoid the accident. He did not make any serious attempt and this resulted into the contributory negligence. I do not fnd any illegality in the fndings of contributory negligence on the part of deceased Narsimalu and as also appellant No.2. Therefore, the observation of learned Member is quite right. When appellant No.2 observed that, there was an opportunity to avoid the accident. He did not make any serious attempt and this resulted into the contributory negligence. I do not fnd any illegality in the fndings of contributory negligence on the part of deceased Narsimalu and as also appellant No.2. Therefore, all the contentions raised in this regard by learned counsel for the appellants also stand rejected. 14. This takes me to the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents that learned Member did not give just compensation and therefore, the respondents should be awarded fair and just compensation. At the outset, it may be noted that there is substantive appeal and cross objection in respect of just compensation, as is agitated now before me, is not fled by learned counsel for the respondents. But law is well settled. A statutory duty has been cast on the tribunal to award "just compensation". The appeal being continuation of main proceedings, this Court is also bound by the statutory mandate to determine "just compensation" notwithstanding the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants. 15. The next question, therefore, is whether this Court can enhance the compensation in the absence of cross objection. In Urmila Devi and Ors. Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another (2020) 11 SCC 316 , the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 24 held as under:- "24. A conjoint reading of the provisions of Sec. 173 of the M.V. Act; Rule 249 of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Rules, 1992; and Order XLI rule 22 of the CPC would reveal, that there is no restriction on the right to appeal of any of the parties. It is clear, that any party aggrieved by any part of the Award would be entitled to prefer an appeal. It is also clear, that any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, apart from supporting the fnding in his favour, is also entitled to take any cross- objection to the decree which he could have taken by way of appeal." 16. Although no formal cross-objection has been fled by the respondents, but in view of above proposition of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is well within its right to determine enhancement of the compensation, if any, in favour of the respondents. 17. Although no formal cross-objection has been fled by the respondents, but in view of above proposition of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is well within its right to determine enhancement of the compensation, if any, in favour of the respondents. 17. Learned Member while granting compensation in Claim Petition No. 262 of 2000 did not take into account future prospects. Learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed income of Rs.4000.00 pm of deceased Narsimalu as is considered by learned Member. Therefore, the annual income of deceased comes to Rs.48,000.00pa. In the light of decision given in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. 2018 (3) Mh.L.J. 70 , the respondents are entitled to claim 30% towards future prospects, which workout to Rs.62,600.00. After deducting 1/4th amount, the total amount is worked out to Rs.46,950.00. As far as the multiplier is concerned, learned Member gave fnding that deceased Narsimalu was 50 years old and therefore, learned Member rightly applied multiplier of 13. Thus, the total amount comes to Rs.6,10,350.00. The respondents/ claimants are also entitled for Rs.15,000.00 towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000.00 towards loss of estate and Rs.1,60,000.00 towards loss of consortium (Rs.40,000.00 to each claimant). Thus, the total amount of compensation would be Rs.8,00,350.00. Out of which, 80% may be deducted towards contributory negligence (of deceased Narsimalu), leading to total amount of Rs.1,60,070.00. Out of this amount, learned Member has already awarded Rs.82,220.00 and therefore, the remaining amount of Rs.77,850.00 more needs to be given to the claimants. 18. This brings me to another Claim Petition No. 249 of 2000 wherein the claimants lost their mother i.e. deceased Timalla. The only argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is that since it has been held by learned Member that there was contributory negligence on the part of appellant No.2, the same yardstick should have been applied in the present case by learned Member. 19. It appears that learned counsel failed to take into consideration the difference between composite negligence and contributory negligence. 20. In Khenyei (supra), the question arose before the Hon'ble Apex Court for consideration was, whether it is open to a claimant to recover entire compensation from one of the joint tort feasors, particularly when in accident caused by composite negligence of drivers of trailor-truck and bus has been found to 2/3rd and 1/3rd extent respectively. 20. In Khenyei (supra), the question arose before the Hon'ble Apex Court for consideration was, whether it is open to a claimant to recover entire compensation from one of the joint tort feasors, particularly when in accident caused by composite negligence of drivers of trailor-truck and bus has been found to 2/3rd and 1/3rd extent respectively. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 18 held as under : "(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. (iii) In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufcient, 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 satisfed 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." 21. I hold that the learned Member was justifed in applying the principles of composite negligence. The present case of composite negligence cannot be equated with earlier one inasmuch as in earlier claim petition, the learned Member found same to be case of contributory negligence and accordingly fxed the responsibilities. 22. I hold that the learned Member was justifed in applying the principles of composite negligence. The present case of composite negligence cannot be equated with earlier one inasmuch as in earlier claim petition, the learned Member found same to be case of contributory negligence and accordingly fxed the responsibilities. 22. Herein, the claimants lost their mother because of contributory negligence of their father and appellant No.2 and since, admittedly, their father died in accident, they were left with only choice to sue for damages. In such a case of composite negligence, there was no necessity to establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately i.e. of deceased father and appellant No.2 nor it was necessary for the learned Member to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. Learned Member rightly followed the dictum given in case of T. O. Anthony v. Karvarnan and Ors. 2008 (3) SCC 748 (para 6). 23. Again, in the present case, learned counsel for the respondents has raised issue of just compensation. 24. I have already hereinabove summarized the principles governing just compensation and as also about enhancement of compensation in the absence of cross objection. 25. Learned counsel for the respondents has also not disputed income of Rs.4000.00 pm of deceased Timalla as is considered by learned Member. Therefore, the annual income of deceased comes to Rs.48,000.00pa. In the light of decision given in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. 2018 (3) Mh.L.J. 70 , the respondents are entitled to claim 40% towards future prospects, which works out to Rs.67,200.00. After deducting 1/4th amount, the total amount is worked out to Rs.50,400.00. As far as the multiplier is concerned, learned Member gave fnding that deceased Timalla was 35 years old and therefore, learned Member rightly applied multiplier of 15. Thus, the total amount comes to Rs.7,56,000.00. The respondents/ claimants are also entitled for Rs.15,000.00 towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000.00 towards loss of estate and Rs.1,60,000.00 towards loss of consortium (Rs.40,000.00 to each claimant). Thus, the total amount of compensation would be Rs.9,46,000.00. Out of this amount, learned Member has already awarded Rs.4,95,000.00 and therefore, the remaining amount of Rs.4,51,000.00 more needs to be given to the claimants. 26. In view of above, I pass the following order : ORDER (i) Both the frst appeals are dismissed. Thus, the total amount of compensation would be Rs.9,46,000.00. Out of this amount, learned Member has already awarded Rs.4,95,000.00 and therefore, the remaining amount of Rs.4,51,000.00 more needs to be given to the claimants. 26. In view of above, I pass the following order : ORDER (i) Both the frst appeals are dismissed. (ii) The respondents/ claimants in First Appeal No. 173 of 2012 are held to be entitled for total compensation of Rs.77,850.00 along with interest @ 7.5% pa from 3/3/2010 till realisation of the amount. (iii) The respondents/ claimants in First Appeal No. 171 of 2012 are held to be entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,51,000.00 along with interest @ 7.5% pa from 3/3/2010 till realisation of the amount. (iv) The appellants to deposit the balance amount along with proportionate interest within a period of two months from today. (v) The appellants shall pay differential amount of court fees, if any, in view of additional amount of compensation allowed by this judgment before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.3, Nagpur within two weeks from the date of computation of such additional court fees. (vi) The respondents /claimants are entitled to withdraw the said amounts along with accrued interest in equal proportion.