ORDER : – These appeals are filed respectively by the IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. being insurer of Qualis Vehicle bearing Registration No. MP 04 HB 1173 and that by the claimants. 2. The ground taken by the insurer IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. is that initially claim was filed by the claimants against the owner driver of Bus No. MP 14 H 3097 alleging that bus driver had suddenly applied brakes as a result of which Qualis which was travelling behind had dashed with the bus resulting in death of Smt. Meera Kotwani. 3. It is submitted that vide order dated 28-3-2007 learned Tribunal had allowed amendment application when it was informed by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., insurer of the bus that the policy was fake and not admissible to change the story that accident took place due to sole mistake and negligence of the respondent No. 4 Mohan Lal Kotwani, who was driving Qualis at the relevant point of time. This amendment application was allowed, correction was allowed to be carried out. 4. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. filed W. P. No. 7714/2007 and in that writ petition, order of the Tribunal dated 28-3-2007 was set aside and matter was remitted to the Tribunal to decide application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code afresh. 5. Learned 15th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide order dated 13-3-2015 decided said application and held that since amendment proposed amounted to withdrawal of the admission duly made in the application, therefore, such amendment could not have been allowed in terms of the law laid down in D. V. Paul vs. Manisha Lalwani, MPWN 1999(1) SN 223, Chandrasen Jain vs. Suresh Chand Jain and others, 2007(3) MPHT 486, so also in case of Panchdeo Narain Shrivastva, vs. Km. Jyoti Sahay and another, AIR 1983 SC 462 and Heeralal vs. Kalyan Mal and others, AIR 1998 SC 618 . 6. It is submitted that once amendment application was dismissed then there could not have been any evidence contrary to the pleadings and learned 6th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which finally decide the claim vide award dated 30-3-2016 erred in overlooking the basic principle of law that no evidence which is contrary to the pleadings is admissible in law. Placing these facts into consideration, indulgence is sought. 7. Placing these facts into consideration, indulgence is sought. 7. As far as, claimants are concerned, they have seeking proper compensation on the ground that accident took place on 14-2-2006, Smt. Meera Kotwani was running an agency of Madhur courier on the date of the accident besides being a home maker, therefore, proper income should have been construed while passing an award. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, Appeal filed by the IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. insurer of the Qualis in which deceased was travelling deserves to be allowed, inasmuch as, reliance placed by Shri Kapil Patwardhan on the law laid down by Supreme Court in case of Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2015) 9 SCC 273 , wherein it is held that in case of composite negligence, claimants can claim compensation from either of the joint tortfeasors will not be applicable to the facts of the present case because there is no pleading in the claim petition to show that even the driver and owner of the Qualis was a joint tortfeasors. Thus, this judgment will have no application to the facts of the present case where in the pleadings claimants had attributed sole negligence to the driver of the bus who had suddenly applied brakes. 9. Thus, in view of the aforesaid appeal filed by the IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. deserves to be allowed and is allowed. 10. Now, the question arises that what should be the quantum admissible in favour of the claimants and secondly who shall be liable to pay that compensation. 11. Answering the second question, first, it will be the owner driver of the bus bearing registration No. MP 14H 3097 who will be responsible to settle the claim. As far as, quantum is concerned, even if a home maker is construed to be a skilled person then monthly wages for a skilled worker were to the tune of Rs. 2548/- per month or Rs. 30,576 per annum. Deceased is survived by four legal representatives, therefore, 1/4th is to be deducted towards the living expenses of the deceased. After deduction dependency will come out to Rs. 22,932/-. Since deceased was 49 years of age, 25% will be added towards the future prospects and then multiplier of 13 will be applicable, taking total pecuniary compensation to Rs. 3,72,645/-. Deceased is survived by four legal representatives, therefore, 1/4th is to be deducted towards the living expenses of the deceased. After deduction dependency will come out to Rs. 22,932/-. Since deceased was 49 years of age, 25% will be added towards the future prospects and then multiplier of 13 will be applicable, taking total pecuniary compensation to Rs. 3,72,645/-. Over and above which claimants are entitled to addition of Rs. 30,000/- under the head of last rites and loss of estate, besides this claimants No. 1,2 and 3 being daughters of the deceased will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each under the head of loss of parental consortium. Taking total compensation to Rs. 5,22,645/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Six Hundred Fourty Five Only) in place of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. Thus, there will be enhancement to tune of Rs. 72,645/- (Rupees Seventy Two Thousand Six Hundred Fourty Five Only) which will be payable along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment by the owner driver of the offending bus bearing Registration No. MP 14H 3097. 12. In above terms, both these appeals are disposed of. Record of the Tribunal be sent back. Certified copy as per rules.