JUDGMENT : MAULIK J.SHELAT, J. 1. The Present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MV Act’) by the original claimants against judgment and award dated 03.07.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) and 1st Fast Track Court, Mahesana in Motor Accident Claim Petition (MACP) No.758 of 2008. 2. Short facts. 2.1 On 21.10.2008 at about 3:30 pm, near railway crossing on Thol Road, Kadi, deceased Mukeshbhai Patel was trying to mount tractor, at that time one dumper bearing registration No.GJ-3-W-7277 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed with tractor. Thereby deceased Mukeshbahi sustained injuries and succumbed to it. The legal heirs of deceased had filed claim petition, claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- from owner and insurance company of dumper involved in the accident. 2.2 The owner of the dumper though appeared through his advocate chosen not to file any written statement whereas opponent No.2 – insurance company had filed its written statement at Exh.50. Thereby, dispute the claim of original claimants. 2.3 After appreciating evidence on record, tribunal has found both the drivers equally negligent for causing the accident. 2.4 So far as compensation is concerned, tribunal has assumed income of the deceased Rs.1,50,000/- including his prospective income as deceased was having ownership of land, six trucks / tractors. Thereby, awarded compensation of Rs.15,30,000/-. Nonetheless, as claimants have not joined driver and owner of tractor and not given true and correct facts of happening of accident, 50% amount out of total compensation is deducted. So in fact, tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,65,000/- as total compensation to the original claimants with 7.5% interest thereon from the date of petition till realization. 2.5 Being aggrieved by the non-granting adequate compensation and deducting 50% of compensation amount, on wrong premise, present appeal is filed by the claimants challenging impugned judgment and award. 3. Submissions of appellant. 3.1 Mr. Tejas Satta with Mr. Jayesh Patel, learned advocates appearing for original claimants would submit that when the deceased was not found negligent for causing accident then tribunal has erroneously deducted 50% of compensation on completely wrong premise, which is contrary to settled legal position. He would submit that it is the case of composite negligent for the claimants. Thereby, they can recover total compensation from any of the tortfesser. He would submit that it is the case of composite negligent for the claimants. Thereby, they can recover total compensation from any of the tortfesser. 3.2 In support of his submission, he would rely upon a decision of full bench of Honourable Apex Court in case of Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Reported in 2015 (9) SCC 273 . He would further submit that claimants are entitled to receive entire compensation from owner and insurance company of dumper. According to his submission, tribunal has committed serious error in deducting 50% amount from the total compensation. He would further submit that there were Four dependents of the deceased at the time of accident who are claimants of claim petition, then as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sarla Varma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 , 1/4th personal expenses ought to have deducted instead of 1/3rd by the tribunal. Lastly, he would request to allow this appeal. 4. Submissions of respondents 4.1 Learned advocate for the insurance company would submit that there is no error committed by the tribunal while deducting 50% amount of total compensation as claimant has not joined driver, owner and insurance company of the tractor and also not come with clean hands by narrating true and correct facts of the accident. 4.2 He would fairly concede that as per the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in case of Kheneyi (supra) held that in a case of composite negligence, claimant can recover entire compensation from any of the tort feasor. 4.3 Nonetheless, he would submit that present case is not fall under any of such cases so discussed by the Honourable Apex Court in case of Kheneyi (supra). 4.4 Nevertheless, he would request this Court that in a case this Court would found deduction of 50% of amount from total compensation by tribunal is erroneous approach and contrary to aforesaid law laiddown in case of Kheneyi (supra) then opponent No.2 insurance company of dumper may be given right to recover 50% amount of total compensation from driver, owner and insurance company of tractor by initiating necessary legal proceedings in accordance with law. 4.5 So far as personal deduction of 1/4th instead of 1/3rd is concerned, he would unable to counter the submission made by learned advocates appearing for the claimants as there were 4 dependent claimants upon deceased at the time of accident. 4.6 As far as granting of conventional amount and other amount is concerned, he would request this Court that tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation under such respective heads, then no interference may be made by this Court in the present appeal. 4.7 No other and further submission are made. Record and proceedings are not available. 5. Points for consideration. 5.1 Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal has committed any error while deducting 50% amount out of total compensation? 5.2 Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal has committed any error while granting inadequate compensation in favour of the claimants? 6. Findings of the Court. 6.1 The tribunal has deducted 50% of amount from total compensation on the ground that claimants have not came with clean hands by neither joining driver of tractor nor stated true and correct facts. It has been so observed by the tribunal having suppressed correct facts from the tribunal and not joining necessary parties of tractor involved in the accident, claimants are not entitled to receive full compensation. 6.2 The deceased was not found contributory negligent for causing accident by the tribunal. It appears from the findings so recorded by the tribunal while deciding issue No.1 by the tribunal that both the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident were found equally negligent for causing accident. In these peculiar facts situation issue germane is squarely covered by the decision of Kheneyi (supra). 6.3 At this stage, it is apposite to rely upon dictum of Honourable Supreme Court in case of Kheneyi (supra) as under; “What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is as follows . (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. (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 sufficient, 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 satisfied 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. 6.4 The above mentioned pronouncement of Honourable Supreme Court clears doubts in anyone’s mind that whenever victim and / or deceased of road accident is not found contributory negligent and for that it is the case of composite negligent, claimants would not suppose to prove rather having open to recover entire compensation from any of the tort feasor by not joining all. 6.5 According to us, tribunal has committed serious error of law and erroneously deducted 50% amount out of total compensation on completely wrong premise. Such a view of tribunal is not only deplorable but cannot sustained in law. So, in view of aforesaid facts and ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Kheneyi (supra), we are of the view that tribunal has completely wrong in deducting 50% of the amount from total compensation and to that extent we are quashing and setting aside such findings of the tribunal. So, in view of aforesaid facts and ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Kheneyi (supra), we are of the view that tribunal has completely wrong in deducting 50% of the amount from total compensation and to that extent we are quashing and setting aside such findings of the tribunal. 6.6 This lead us to next stage of arguments that without considering total number of dependents, tribunal has calculated 1/3rd personal expenses of deceased instead of 1/4th. It is remained undisputed before the tribunal that there were Four dependents upon the deceased at the time of accident who are present claimants in the claim petition / appeal then as per ratio laiddown in case of Sarla Verma (supra) tribunal was required to calculate 1/4th personal expenses instead of 1/3rd. 6.7 Likewise, considering the ratio laid down in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Versus Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 and Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur Versus United India Insurance Co.Ltd. reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 , claimants are entitled to Rs.48,400/- each towards consortium, Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses. 6.8 Thus, in view of the aforesaid observations and our findings claimants are entitled to the following compensation; Annual income including prospective income Rs.1,50,000/- 1/4th personal expenses 37,500/- Total 1,12,500 Multiplier 15 (age of 40 years) 16,87,500/- Loss of consortium 1,93,600/- (48,400 X 4) Loss of estate 18,150/- Funeral expenses 18,150/- Total compensation 19,17,400/- Tribunal awarded Rs.7,65,000/- Additional compensation Rs.11,52,400/- 7. Conclusion. 7.1 The upshot of the aforesaid discussion, findings and position of law, we are of the view that tribunal has committed gross error of law in deducting 50% amount out of total compensation. 7.2 Thus, the Original claimants are entitled to receive additional compensation of Rs.11,52,400/- with 7.5% interest from the date of claim petition till realization, excluding period from 25.03.2019 to 06.12.2023 as observed by this Court in its order dated 06.12.2023 passed in Civil Application No.2 of 2022 in First Appeal No.1409 of 2012. 7.3 The claimants have preferred the appeal claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, against which we have awarded compensation of Rs.11,52,400/-, then claimants are liable to pay additional Court fees on balance amount, which may be adjusted from additional compensation, that may be deposited by the insurance company. 7.3 The claimants have preferred the appeal claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, against which we have awarded compensation of Rs.11,52,400/-, then claimants are liable to pay additional Court fees on balance amount, which may be adjusted from additional compensation, that may be deposited by the insurance company. 7.4 The claimants are entitled to receive the additional compensation as per the ratio fixed by the tribunal in para 4 of its operative portion of the impugned judgment and award. 7.5 The insurance company shall deposit additional compensation with tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order. It is open for the insurance company to recover 50% of total awarded amount including additional compensation so awarded by this Court from driver / owner / insurance company of tractor involved in the accident in accordance with law. 7.6 Once said additional compensation will be deposited by the insurance company, the tribunal shall disburse such amount in favour of the claimant through RTGS / NEFT or any other mode in accordance with law. 7.7 Thus, in view of above, appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.