JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment/award dated 03.08.2017 passed by Sri Vishwa Nath Shukla, learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 154 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim case of the appellants. Factual matrix 3. Factual matrix of the case giving rise to this appeal is that one Lalit Prasad boarded on tempo on 10.07.2006 bearing registration No. JH-01K-7297 and reached near the bridge near Pandra Bazar Samittee, meanwhile, an unknown truck being driven very rashly and negligently dashed against the said tempo, due to which the said Lalit Prasad sustained fatal injuries and declared dead at Ratu Hospital. 4. In connection with the said accident, F.I.R. was lodged vide Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) P.S. Case No. 440 of 2016 dated 11.07.2006 against the driver of unknown truck for the offences under Sections 279, 337 & 304A of the I.P.C. Autopsy of the dead body was conducted at RIMS, Ranchi on 11.07.2006. After investigation of the above police case, final form was submitted stating therein that occurrence was found true, but offending vehicle truck cannot be traced out. 5. The appellants, being wife and son and minor daughter of the deceased had filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of death of deceased, Lalit Prasad arising out of use of vehicle in public place. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was aged about 45 years on the date of occurrence and was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month from his service and but to sudden death, the applicants have suffered mental shock and agony and deprived from their livelihood and companionship of husband and father respectively. 6. Opposite Party No. 1, Smt. Veena Devi, owner of the vehicle Tempo bearing registration no. JH-01K-7297 did not turn up inspite of due service of summons and the case was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11.02.2014. 7. Opposite Party No. 2, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., insurer of the vehicle Tempo bearing registration no. 6. Opposite Party No. 1, Smt. Veena Devi, owner of the vehicle Tempo bearing registration no. JH-01K-7297 did not turn up inspite of due service of summons and the case was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11.02.2014. 7. Opposite Party No. 2, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., insurer of the vehicle Tempo bearing registration no. JH-01K-7297 filed its written statement stating inter alia that the alleged occurrence took place due to rash and negligent driving by unknown offending vehicle truck which dashed in the tempo, in which the deceased was travelling. 8. Admittedly, the said tempo was not being driven in rash and negligent manner, therefore, the claim case is not maintainable against the opposite party no. 2. It was also pleaded that exorbitant amount of compensation has been claimed without any basis, which is fit to be dismissed. 9. Learned Tribunal has settled following issues for adjudication of the matter in controversy :- I. Whether the claim application as framed is maintainable ? II. Whether the applicants have valid cause of action for the case ? III. Whether death of the deceased namely, Lalit Prasad resulted to the alleged vehicular accident cause due to driving the vehicle Tempo bearing registration no. JH-01K-7297 ? IV. Whether it is case of composite negligence and both the vehicles the Tempo registration No. JH-01K-7297 as well as unknown Truck involved in the accident have acted as joint Tort-Feasors ? V. Whether the insured/owner of the vehicle Tempo registration No. JH-01K-7297 has violated any terms and conditions of the insurance policy ? VI. Whether applicants are entitled for compensation as claimed, if yes, against whom and to what extent ? VII. To what relief or reliefs, if any, the applicants are entitled to ? 10. In order to substantiate the above issues, the claimants have examined two witnesses A.W.-1, Sushma Sinha and A.W.-2 Aklesh Sinha and apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidence have been adduced:- Ext. 1 – Certified Copy of FIR vide Kotwali (Suikhdeo Nagar) P.S. Case No. 440/06, dated 11.05.06 against Unknown Truck driver for the offence u/s 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. Ext. 2 – Certified Copy of Final Report vide Final Report No. 538/06, dated 31.07.07 for the offence u/s 279, 337 and 304A of I.P.C. Ext. 1 – Certified Copy of FIR vide Kotwali (Suikhdeo Nagar) P.S. Case No. 440/06, dated 11.05.06 against Unknown Truck driver for the offence u/s 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. Ext. 2 – Certified Copy of Final Report vide Final Report No. 538/06, dated 31.07.07 for the offence u/s 279, 337 and 304A of I.P.C. Ext. 3 – Photo copy of Postmortem Report of the deceased namely Lalit Prasad vide P.M. report No. 1028/06 dated 11.06.06 at RIMS, Ranchi. Ext. 4 – Photo copy of Certificate of Fitness of the Tempo registration No. JH-01K-7297 valid for the period from 01.03.05 to 09.03.07. Ext. 5 – Photo copy of Tax Token of the Tempo registration No. JH-01K-7297 in the name of Bina Devi valid up to 16.03.08. Ext. 6 – Photo copy of receipt for collection of premium issued from O.P. No. 2 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vide Collection No. 540302/31/06/0000000975, dated 06.06.06 for Insurance Police No. 540302/31/06/01/0000102711. Ext. 7 – Photo copy of Certificate of registration of the Tempo registration No. JH-01K-7297 in the name of Bina Devi (Sharma), O.P. No. 1. 11. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the respondent Insurance Company. 12. The learned Tribunal has decided Issue Nos. III & IV against the claimants and held that the death of deceased namely Lalit Prasad has been resulted in the alleged vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending unknown truck, which dashed against the Tempo No. JH-01K-7297, in which deceased was travelling, however, no fault of the said tempo has been proved and offending vehicle unknown truck ran away and could not be traced out. Thus, it is a case of sole negligence of unknown truck and not the case of composite negligence of both the vehicles. The said tempo driver cannot be said to be joint tort-feasor. 13. While deciding Issue No. V it was held that all relevant documents and Insurance Policy has been produced in connection with tempo registration no. JH-01K-7497, as such, there is no violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy by the insured opposite party no. 1. 14. So far Issue No. VI is concerned, the income of the deceased was fixed as Rs. 3,000/- per month after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and adding multiplier of 14, the compensation was calculated as Rs. JH-01K-7497, as such, there is no violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy by the insured opposite party no. 1. 14. So far Issue No. VI is concerned, the income of the deceased was fixed as Rs. 3,000/- per month after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and adding multiplier of 14, the compensation was calculated as Rs. 3,36,000/- and to the above amount, Rs. 25,000/- as general damages towards funeral expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- under the heading of consortium was added and total amount of compensation calculated to be Rs. 3,81,000/-. 15. The learned Tribunal has placed reliance upon the reported judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. reported in 2015 (2) TAC 677 (SC) and Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Premlata Shukla & Others reported in (2007) 13 SCC 476 and has held that in the instant case there is no ingredients contributory or composite negligence of both the vehicles rather there is sole negligence on the part of unknown truck driver and falls under hit and run case. Therefore, Insurer of tempo vehicle No. JH-01K-7497, in which the deceased was travelling cannot be saddled with liability to pay compensation amount. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that admittedly the deceased Lalit Prasad was travelling in Tempo, which was dashed by unknown truck causing grievous injuries and consequently deceased was declared dead at Ratu Hospital. It is further submitted that Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) P.S. Case No. 440 of 2006 dated 11.07.2006 was registered for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304A I.P.C. against unknown truck driver and after investigation, final form was submitted vide No. 438 of 2006 dated 31.07.2008, finding the case to be true, but offending vehicle Truck could not be traced out. It is further submitted that the deceased was passenger in the tempo and he is a third party, as such, claim of compensation from Insurance Company and Owner of the Vehicle is maintainable under the law. There is no doubt that the accident has taken place due to head on collusion of two vehicles. It is a case of composite negligence, for which liability is joint and several on each tort-feasor and this principle is ignored by the learned Tribunal. There is no doubt that the accident has taken place due to head on collusion of two vehicles. It is a case of composite negligence, for which liability is joint and several on each tort-feasor and this principle is ignored by the learned Tribunal. It is further submitted that the case of the claimants is covered under Sections 165/166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned court below has failed to properly appreciate ratio of the judgments propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Khenyei (Supra) and Premlata Shukla (Supra), which are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is further submitted that in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Yadu Sambhaji More & Others reported in (2011) 2 SCC 416 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that where a person was standing on the road and an oil tanker got fire due to which the person sustained injury though he was not travelling from motor vehicle, but considered the accident within the purview of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the compensation was paid accordingly, as such, impugned judgment/award is fit to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed. 17. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1/Insurance Company has vehemently refuted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and has submitted that the facts and circumstances of this case are very peculiar and the driver of the tempo was not negligently driving, in which the deceased was travelling and there was clear cut finding based on evidence by the learned Tribunal that it was a hit and run case caused by unknown truck, as such, the claimants are entitled for compensation, but under the solatium scheme not under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which has to be paid by the State Authority. 18. I have gone through the impugned judgment/award in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both the parties. The points emerge for adjudication of this appeal are as follows:- (i) Whether the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on the issue of composite negligence is supported by the evidence on record? (ii) If it is a case of head on collusion between two vehicles, whether the respondent no. 1/Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the award? The points emerge for adjudication of this appeal are as follows:- (i) Whether the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on the issue of composite negligence is supported by the evidence on record? (ii) If it is a case of head on collusion between two vehicles, whether the respondent no. 1/Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the award? (iii) Whether the amount of compensation calculated by the learned Tribunal is in accordance with law or requires any modification? Analysis, Reasons and Decisions 19. For proper appreciation of the case, relevant provision of Sections 165 & 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are extracted hereunder:- 165. Claims Tribunals. - (1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles includes claims for compensation under [section 164]. (2) A Claims Tribunal shall consist of such number of members as the State Government may think fit to appoint and where it consists of two or more members, one of them shall be appointed as the Chairman thereof. (3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a member of a Claims Tribunal unless he (a) is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court, or (b) is, or has been, a District Judge, or (c) is qualified for appointment as a High Court Judge [or as a District Judge.] (4) Where two or more Claims Tribunals are constituted for any area, the State Government, may by general or special order, regulate the distribution of business among them. 166. Application for compensation. 166. Application for compensation. - (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application: [Provided further that where a person accepts compensation under section 164 in accordance with the procedure provided under section 149, his claims petition before the Claims Tribunal shall lapse.] [(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed: [(3) No application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident.] (4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under [section 159] as an application for compensation under this Act.] [(5) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the right of a person to claim compensation for injury in an accident shall, upon the death of the person injured, survive to his legal representatives, irrespective of whether the cause of death is relatable to or had any nexus with the injury or not.] 20. For proper adjudication of aforesaid points re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence is necessary. Point Nos. (i) & (ii) It appears that the accident admittedly took place on 10.07.2006 in the night at about 23:15 hours. For proper adjudication of aforesaid points re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence is necessary. Point Nos. (i) & (ii) It appears that the accident admittedly took place on 10.07.2006 in the night at about 23:15 hours. The first information report (Exhibit-1) was registered on the basis of fardbeyan of elder brother of the deceased namely, Kalika Prasad at RIMS Hospital, Ranchi, who has stated that while his brother was returning home, boarded on Tempo bearing registration no. JH-01K-7497 and when the said Tempo reached near Pandra Bazar Samiti, in the meanwhile unknown truck being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed in the tempo, due to which, his brother sustained several injuries and brought to Ratu Hospital, where he has been declared dead. Admittedly, the informant was not an eye witness nor he was examined as a witness before the learned Tribunal on behalf of the claimants. Exhibit-2, Charge-sheet was submitted only on account of the fact that no clue of the unknown truck was found. None of the witnesses named in the charge-sheet have been examined in the instant claim case. A.W.-1 Sushma Sinha is the claimant, admittedly not an eye-witness of the occurrence, rather she has reiterated the contents of F.I.R. as regards factum of accident, due to which her husband died. In her cross-examination, it was illustrated by the opposite party no. 2 that F.I.R. was not lodged against the tempo driver. She has not mentioned in the claim petition that accident took place due to fault of tempo driver. A.W.-2 Akhlesh Sinha is the neighbour of claimant and claimed to be eye-witness of the occurrence. According to his evidence, on 11.07.2006 at about 23:15 hours, he was returning his home by his motorcycle and when he reached near Pandra Bridge, he saw that one truck had dashed a tempo and fled away, due to this accident, two passengers boarding on tempo were injured. One of them was Lalit Prasad, who subsequently died at Hospital. He has clearly admitted that the alleged accident took place, due to head on collusion between Tempo No. JH-01K-7297 and one unknown truck. In cross-examination conducted by opposite party no. 1 Insurance Company, he reiterates that the accident took place on the road near Pandra Bridge. He saw accident from a distance of 100 ft. from behind the tempo. He has clearly admitted that the alleged accident took place, due to head on collusion between Tempo No. JH-01K-7297 and one unknown truck. In cross-examination conducted by opposite party no. 1 Insurance Company, he reiterates that the accident took place on the road near Pandra Bridge. He saw accident from a distance of 100 ft. from behind the tempo. Post Mortem Report of the deceased (Exhibit-3) also shows multiple head injuries on other parts of the body sustained by deceased in vehicular accident and found ante-mortem caused by hard and blunt substance. It is also evident that no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the opposite party (Insurance Company) inspite of an application filed by it under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 allowed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 24.02.2015. From perusal of testimony of sole eye-witness (A.W.-2) namely, Akhlesh Sinha, it is crystal clear that the accident took place on the pitch road and there was head on collusion between two vehicles, which clearly suggest that unless and until the driver of both vehicles was not negligent, the accident cannot have been happened. The principle of res ipsa loquitur is clearly applicable in the present case. In the factual background of the case and manner of accident as alleged by the witnesses and the documentary evidence, it may safely be presumed that the alleged accident took place due to negligent driving of both the drivers of the tempo no. JH-01K-7297 and the unknown truck. Therefore, this case comes within the ambit of composite negligence of two vehicles drivers, although the clue of one is not found. It appears that the learned Tribunal has mis-directed himself towards the proper evaluation of oral testimony of sole eye-witness and improper consideration of material illustrated in the cross-examination of P.W.-1, who is not eye witness of the accident and arrived at wrong conclusion that the claimants have failed to prove any negligent driving of the tempo by its driver, although the said driver was also not examined in this case. I have given anxious consideration to the factual aspects of the case, manner of accident as alleged and also in view of the fact that the deceased herein is a third party and innocent person. I have given anxious consideration to the factual aspects of the case, manner of accident as alleged and also in view of the fact that the deceased herein is a third party and innocent person. I have of the firm view that the findings recorded by learned Tribunal that the accident took place due to exclusive negligence on the part of the unknown driver and it is not a case of composite negligence is absolutely devoid of merits and based upon extraneous facts beyond the evidence available on record. Point No. (iii) So far the computation of compensation amount is concerned, the learned Tribunal has decided the corresponding Issue No. VI. The learned Tribunal has discussed at length that at the time of death, the age of deceased was 45 years and it is proved by A.W.-1, wife of the deceased that her husband was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month from his private service. In the Post Mortem Report of the deceased the age is mentioned as 45 years. The Tribunal further recorded finding that no working place of the deceased was stated by wife of the deceased (A.W.-1) and in the petition itself, she has stated monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 4,000/- per month. So, in absence of concrete evidence of income, it was fixed at Rs. 3,000/- per month on the basis of daily wages, but no amount has been calculated towards future prospect and general damages of amount of Rs. 25,000/- as “Funeral Expenses”, Rs. 10,000/- under the head of “Loss of Estate”, Rs. 10,000/- under the head “Loss of consortium” has also been calculated inadequately. Accordingly, learned Tribunal held that the claimants/applicants are entitled for total amount of Rs. 3,81,000/- as compensation, but in view of principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei (Supra) and Premlata Shukla (Supra), the opposite parties were not held liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. 21. At this juncture, I feel inclined to reiterate the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei (Supra), wherein it has been held that there is a difference between contributory and composite negligence. 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. 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. In such case, the plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and to recover entire compensation as liability of joint tortfeasor is joint and several. 22. In the instant case also, the injures were sustained by the deceased culminating into his death by composite negligence of driver of tempo no. JH-01K-7297 and the unknown truck driver. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to implead the owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles or any of them. However, even if all joint tortfeasor are impleaded and both the drivers have entered the witness box and the Tribunal or the Court is able to determine the extent of negligence of each of the driver that is for the purpose of inter se liability between the joint tortfeasors, but their liability would remain joint and several so as to satisfy the award or compensation. The extent of negligence of joint tortfeasor in such a case is immaterial for satisfaction of the claim of the plaintiff/claimant and need not be determined by the Court. In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between tortfeasor for making payment to the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible as the plaintiff/claimant has the right to recover the whole damages from any one of them. 23. The learned Tribunal has further placed reliance upon the reported judgment in Premlata Shukla (Supra), wherein the deceased was travelling in tempo trax that collided with a truck. The case was filed under Section 304-A I.P.C., but was closed as the registration number of the truck could not be noticed and the truck could not be traced. 23. The learned Tribunal has further placed reliance upon the reported judgment in Premlata Shukla (Supra), wherein the deceased was travelling in tempo trax that collided with a truck. The case was filed under Section 304-A I.P.C., but was closed as the registration number of the truck could not be noticed and the truck could not be traced. A claim petition was filed before the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the driver, owner and the insurance company with which the tempo trax was insured. The learned Tribunal upon analysing the materials, including the F.I.R., arrived at a finding of fact that the driver of tempo trax was not driving the tempo trax rashly and negligently. It, therefore, dismissed the claim petition holding that “In these circumstances the driver and insurance company of Tempo trax … cannot be held responsible for the accident.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in appeal from refusal of award by the High Court held that the contents of F.I.R. admitted by both the claimant and opposite party and marked Exhibit could not be retracted or one part of the F.I.R., if admitted in evidence, the party bringing the same on record cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that the other contents, contained in the rest part thereof, had not been proved. Thus, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company was allowed. 24. In the instant case, the question is materially different, which pertains to appreciation of evidence by learned Tribunal and adverting some factual aspect without any basis to arrive at conclusion that it is not a case of composite negligence and there is exclusively negligence on the part of unknown truck driver is absolutely perverse and not reliable. Therefore, in the factual background of the present case, the above citation is not applicable in this appeal. 25. In the background of aforesaid fact dealt by me, now it is pertinent to re-assess the compensation amount, to which the appellants are entitled, considering the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,000/- per month. Income Rs. 3,000/- per month Annual Income Rs. 3,000/- x 12 = Rs. 36,000/- 25% future prospect (as the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years) Pranay Sethi (Para- 59.4) Rs. 36,000/- + Rs. 9,000/- =Rs. 3,000/- per month. Income Rs. 3,000/- per month Annual Income Rs. 3,000/- x 12 = Rs. 36,000/- 25% future prospect (as the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years) Pranay Sethi (Para- 59.4) Rs. 36,000/- + Rs. 9,000/- =Rs. 45,000/- 1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses Sarla Verma (Para-30) Rs. 45,000/- x 1/3 = Rs. 15,000/- Total Annual Income Rs. 45,000/- (-) Rs. 15,000/- = Rs. 30,000/- Multiplier of 14 (as the deceased was in the age group of 41-45 years) Sarla Verma (Para-42) Rs. 30,000/- x 14 = Rs. 4,20,000/- Conventional Head Rs. 70,000/- i.e. Rs. 15,000/- as loss of estate, Rs. 40,000/- as loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- as funeral expenses, but the aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. Pranay Sethi (Para-59.8 & 52) Total amount enhanced @ 10% + 10% as the award is of 03.08.2017 Rs. 84,700/- Total Compensation Amount Rs. 4,20,000/- + Rs. 84,700/- Rs. 5,04,700/- 26. So far interest point is concerned recently the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anjali and Ors. vs. Lokendar Rathod and Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683 has held that @ 9 per cent per annum interest to be just and proper. 27. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled for Rs.5,04,700/- as compensation along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of realization. The amount already paid to the appellants by the respondent no. 1, The New India Assurance Company Limited shall be deducted and rest of the amount with interest shall be paid to the appellants as per direction of the learned Tribunal. 28. In view of above discussion and reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants/appellants is, hereby, allowed and the impugned judgment/award dated 03.08.2017 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 154 of 2011.