ORDER : 1. The present First Appeals, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , are preferred by the appellants – original claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 29.12.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.61 of 2003 and MACP No.62 of 2003. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 The brief fact of the present appeals is such that on 23.02.2002, deceased Bhalaji Thakor and deceased Talaji Thakor were travelling in Jeep No.GJ-2-K-2139 towards Mehsana and when it reached near the place of accident, one ST Bus No.GJ-18-V-7612 came from opposite side and met with accident. In the said accident, deceased received injuries and later on died. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Manan Shah submits that he was initially appearing fro owner of the jeep. Since owner of jeep has not contacted during hearing the matter, he has filed retired purshish before the Registry as advocate for the owner of the jeep. Considering the submission, he is treated to be retired as advocate of owner of jeep. 4. Heard learned advocates for the parties. 5. Apt to note that the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of Legislation. The concept of just and fair compensation is integral and seminal to the MV Act. The compensation to be awarded under the principle of just and fair compensation to the injured of the road accident or the legal representative/s of the deceased person is based on the principle of fairness, reasonableness and equability. Anguish of the heart or for mental turbulence being consequential result of the road accident cannot be actually compensated, but the quint essentiality lies in adopting holistic and pragmatic view to the computation of the compensation for the loss sustained, which is to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Although exact or perfect arithmetical calculation of compensation for reparation of the loss arrived from the road accident is almost impossible. The Tribunal is bestowed with duty to make an endevour to award just compensation regardless of the amount claimed by the claimants. The determination of the quantum of compensation therefore, must be liberal and not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scale. The Tribunal is bestowed with duty to make an endevour to award just compensation regardless of the amount claimed by the claimants. The determination of the quantum of compensation therefore, must be liberal and not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scale. Needless to state that money may be awarded, so that something tangible may be procured to reach something else of the like nature, which has been destroyed or lost, but money cannot renew physical frame that has been battered and shattered being a result of the road accident. Yet Tribunal to endavour to bring back victim to stage of pre-road accident as far as possible Thus, the award must be reasonable and cannot be assessed with moderation though it cannot at the same time be pity and what could be granted must be just, fair and equitable compensation. 6. By impugned judgment, learned Tribunal believed that Jeep driver is sole negligent in causing road accident. Having given detail analysis of evidence on record, learned Tribunal exonerated ST driver and ST Corporation from liability to pay compensation and held that since Jeep was plying on wrong side and left no option for ST Bus coming from other side to apply sudden brake and therefore, dragging of jeep upto 40 feet from the spot and sudden brake marks on the road is inadequate to held ST bus driver liable for causing road accident. By such finding learned Tribunal exonerated ST bus driver from liability in causing road accident and did not believe to be wrong doer and exonerated from liability to pay compensation. Consequently, ST Corporation is also exonerated to pay compensation. Jeep driver was held fully negligent in causing road accident. Insurance company of the Jeep was exonerated on the ground that deceased were fare paying passengers in the jeep and it breach of terms and conditions of the policy. 7. During arguments, it is fairly canvassed to the Court hat several people have received injuries from impugned road accident. In that matters, liability of ST Corporation has been earmarked by the learned Tribunal and therefore, appeals under section 173 of the MV Act was preferred before this Court vide First Appeal Nos .469 of 2009, 473 of 2009 and 481 of 2009. In that matters, liability of ST Corporation has been earmarked by the learned Tribunal and therefore, appeals under section 173 of the MV Act was preferred before this Court vide First Appeal Nos .469 of 2009, 473 of 2009 and 481 of 2009. It is submitted that in judgment of said appeals, driver of ST Corporation was held negligent upto 70% and driver of jeep was held 30% negligent in causing road accident. Judgment of Co-ordinate Bench is relied upon and considered. 8. Co-ordinate Bench in First Appeal No.469 of 2009 in para 11 and 12 has held as under :- "11. At the outset, it deserves to be noted that the learned counsel for the appellant - ST Corporation has not challenged the quantum part and thereby, the same is not hereby dealt with. What has been challenged in the present appeals, is the aspect of contributory negligency only. Therefore, so as to decided the the negligency, the Tribunal has observed, thus, as under : “7. As I stated in the beginning that present all the claim petitions are preferred by the respective petitioners to get compensation under the Provision of Sec.166 of M.V. Act, hence first of all petitioners should prove that injured persons as well as deceased persons sustained injuries in vehicle accident and the said accident occurred due to negligence of vehicle drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident. To prove involvement of vehicles, to negligence of drivers and to prove injury sustained to the Injured applicants and to prove that due to injury sustained in the accident deceased person died, petitioners have deposed before this tribunal by filing affidavits. Petitioner Babubhai Mafatlal Prajapati has deposed vide Ex.30, petitioner Kaushikkumar Gandalal has deposed Ex.31, petitioner Bhikhbhai Narottamdas has deposed vide Ex.32, petitioner Kanubhai Lalabhai Patel has deposed vide Ex.33, petitioner Shantaben Mohanlal has deposed Ex.34, petitioner Babiben Atmaram has deposed Ex.44, petitioner Sureshbhai Shambhubhai has deposed vide Ex.45. petitioner Manjulaben Lalbhai has deposed vide Ex.46, petitioner Lalbhai Jamnadas has deposed vide Ex.47, Petitioner Lalbhai Jamnadas Patel had deposed vide Ex.48, petitioner Raval Ambaben alias Kaliben Melabhai vide Ex.49, petitioner Shantaben Baldevbhal has deposed vide Ex.50, petitioner Vikramsin Vejalji Dabhi has deposed vide Ex.51, petitioner Raiben Dantani had deposed vide Ex.52, petitioner Govindbhai Joitaram has deposed vide Ex.82 and petitioner Premilaben Dashrathbhai has deposed vide Ex.83. Above all the petitioners have narrated all the material facts regarding the accident, regarding involvement of vehicles, regarding negligence of drivers and regarding injury sustained by the Passengers in the accident. No doubt above stated facts are challenged in the cross-examination on behalf of the opponent No.2 and 5. It is evident that out of above petitioners Babubhai Mafatlal Prajapati, petitioner Kaukshikumar Gandalal, petitioner Patel Bhikhabhia Narottamdas, petitioner Shantaben Mohanbhia, petitioner Babiben Atmarambhai, petitioner Lalbhai Jamnadas, petitioner Dabhi Vikramsinh Vejalji, petitioner Raiben Shambhubhai Dantani, petitioner Premilaben Dashrathbhai are not eye witnesses. But remaining petitioners are eye-witnesses and they are victim of the accident between two vehicles i.e. Jeep. and S.T.Bus. Material facts stated by the injured applicants in their chief examination regarding involvement of vehicles and negligence of drivers, is not materially challenged in the cross-examination. Not only that oral evidence is fully supported by the documentary evidence on record. In support of oral evidence petitioners have relied on the documentary evidence like complain, Panchnama, Injury certificates, p.m.reports, disability certificates etc. Complain lodged by Vikrambhai Ramanbhai Luhar is produced vide Mark 40/1. On perusal of said complain it reveals that complain is lodged by the driver of Jeep involved in the accident immediately on the same day i.e. accident took place. He has stated that he was coming with his Jeep towards Mehsana with about 21 passengers. He has stated that when he was passing with his Jeep near Nandasan at that time ST Bus bearing registration No.GJ.18V.7612 came from the Mehsana side in full speed negligent manner and heavily dashed with the jeep and due to that the Jeep was thrown away about 20 feat away, on the road. Further he has stated that passengers who were travelling in the Jeep sustained grievous injuries, out of them some were thrown away on the road. The complainant has stated in the complain that S.T.Bus came on wrong side and dashed with the jeep. Panchnama is produced vide Ex.112. Panchnama is prepared on 23-02-2002 at about 13-30. If we minutely peruse the Panchnama, both the vehicles involved in the accident are found there on the place of accident. Both the vehicles are found on the highway road Mehsana to Ahmedabad. Front wheel of the jeep is found 6 feet away from jeep. Adjoining to Jeep, ST Bus is found there on the place of accident. Blood is found below jeep. Both the vehicles are found on the highway road Mehsana to Ahmedabad. Front wheel of the jeep is found 6 feet away from jeep. Adjoining to Jeep, ST Bus is found there on the place of accident. Blood is found below jeep. As per Panchnama, Jeep is heavily damaged and damage is shown Rs.1,50,000/- in the Panchnama. Same way heavy damage is caused to the bus on the front side. Radiator of the bus is damaged, driver side of the bus is heavily damaged. Chassis is found bend. It appears from the Panchnama that both the vehicles are heavily dashed with each other. No doubt driver of Jeep has lodged complain Immediately and in the complain he has stated that ST Bus came on wrong side and dashed with jeep. It is also stated in the complain that jeep was thrown away on the road about 20 feet away. Fact stated in the complain are certainly supported by the Panchnama prepared by police agency. Inquest Panchnama is produced at Ex.113. P.M. notes are also produced, injury certificates of injured persons are also produced vide Ex.__ From the above discussed oral as well as documentary evidence, it certainly proves that due to negligence on the part of drivers of bus and jeep, innocent persons who were travelling in the jeep became victim of the accident. It is proved by the p.m. report that deceased persons died due to Injury sustained in the accident. In view of my above discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that it is proved by the petitioners that due to negligence of drivers of the vehicles, involved in the accident, injured persons sustained injuries and deceased person died due to injury sustained in the accident hence, I reply Issue No.1 and 2 accordingly in in the affirmative. 26. As I discussed in the beginning while discussing issue Nos.1 and 2 that two vehicles are involved in the accident. As I discussed oral evidence of the petitioners it is stated by them that due to sole negligence on the part of bus driver, accident occurred. As per Panchnama both the vehicles involved in the accident i.e. S.T. Bus and jeep are found there on the place of accident. Here in case on hand it is admitted fact that complaint is lodged by the jeep driver. As per Panchnama both the vehicles involved in the accident i.e. S.T. Bus and jeep are found there on the place of accident. Here in case on hand it is admitted fact that complaint is lodged by the jeep driver. In the complain he has stated that S.T.Bus came on wrong side and dashed with the Jeep. Here in case on hand opponent No.2 S.T. Corporation has not examined driver of ST Bus. As I discussed as per Panchnama, it appears that due to negligence of the bus driver accident has taken place. On the front side of both the vehicle heavy damage is caused. This tribunal is of the view that while driving any vehicle on Highway road every driver should take sufficient care to avoid accident. This court is also of the view that S.T.driver should take more care because common people are travelling in the bus and bus being big vehicle S.T.driver should take more care. This court is of the view that some what both the vehicle drivers are responsible for the accident hence I assess 70% negligency of bus driver and 30% of jeep driver.” 12. In view of the aforesaid, I find no reason to disturb the finding recorded by the Tribunal so far as the negligency aspect is concerned and thereby, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is hereby rejected. However, the contention raised by learned counsel that so far as the error committed by the Tribunal in the operative part by which the driver and owner of the jeep are exonerated, appears to be worth accepting. I say so because the Tribunal has categorically held the driver and owner of the Jeep as negligent to the extent of 30%. Thus, when the driver and owner of the Jeep are held negligent to the extent of 30%, they ought to have been held jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award." 9. Principle res ipsa liquotor would apply in the present case. The order of Co-ordinate Bench is not challenged and having not challenged before higher forum and not been disturbed by higher Court, decision on the negligence of two vehicles for the same road accident would apply pari-passu to the present case. Principle res ipsa liquotor would apply in the present case. The order of Co-ordinate Bench is not challenged and having not challenged before higher forum and not been disturbed by higher Court, decision on the negligence of two vehicles for the same road accident would apply pari-passu to the present case. Accordingly, without discussing the issue further I hold driver of ST Bus 70% negligent in causing road accident, whereas, driver of Jeep is held 30% negligent in causing road accident. What further could be deduced that on the ground that deceased were fare paying passenger, insurance company of jeep has been exonerated on the ground that jeep has been used for hire and reward and there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Co-ordinate Bench in the Case of Dhirali (Minor) Vinodbhai vs. Dhanabhai Raisbhai Bhardiya Ahir ( First Appeal No. 1652 of 2019 with allied matters), held that in case when private car is being used as hire for reward and carrying the passengers, against the insurance policy, as is in the case on hand, the claimants being third party cannot suffer for the technicalities, whether the owner/insurance company should pay the amount and it is further directed the insurance company shall first satisfy the award and shall recover the same from owner. Same principle applies in the present case. 10. Above discussion brings to examine, whether quantum has been rightly granted by the learned Tribunal. In claim petition No.61 of 2003, learned Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.3,29,000/- and in claim petition No.62 of 2003, learned Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.3,71,000/-. While assessing compensation in both claim petitions, learned Tribunal did not assess compensation for loss of future prospects nor applied correct multiplier and even compensation for loss of consortium are incorrectly calculated. While maintaining income of the deceased fixed by the learned Tribunal, loss of future prospects, loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses etc. are also granted. 11. Therefore, total compensation in MACP No.61 of 2003 would be as under, which the claimants/s is/are entitled to get. Particulars Amount (Rs.) Future dependency Loss Rs.2100/- per month + 40% prospective = Rs.2940/-, after deducting 1/4th amount (Rs.735/-) towards personal expneses, the amount would be Rs.2205/- and applying 16 multiplier, the total amount would be Rs.4,23,360/- (Rs.26,460/- x 12 x 16). Particulars Amount (Rs.) Future dependency Loss Rs.2100/- per month + 40% prospective = Rs.2940/-, after deducting 1/4th amount (Rs.735/-) towards personal expneses, the amount would be Rs.2205/- and applying 16 multiplier, the total amount would be Rs.4,23,360/- (Rs.26,460/- x 12 x 16). 4,23,360/- Loss of consortium 1,93,600/- Loss of estate 18,150/- Funeral expenses 18,150/- Total… 6,53,260/- Less: compensation already awarded 3,29,000/- Additional amount which is awarded 3,24,260/- 12. Therefore, total compensation in MACP No.62 of 2003 would be as under, which the claimants/s is/are entitled to get. Particulars Amount (Rs.) Future dependency Loss Rs.2100/- per month + 40% prospective = Rs.2940/-, after deducting 1/4th amount (Rs.735/-) towards personal expneses, the amount would be Rs.2205/- and applying 16 multiplier, the total amount would be Rs.4,23,360/- (Rs.26,460/- x 12 x 16). 4,23,360/- Loss of consortium 2,42,000/- Loss of estate 18,150/- Funeral expenses 18,150/- Total… 7,01,606/- Less: compensation already awarded 3,71,000/- Additional amount which is awarded 3,30,660/- 13. I hold that the claimants of MACP No.61 of 2003 (First Appeal No.842 of 2010) are entitled to get the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,24,260/- with 7.5% p.a. interest from the date of filing the claim petition till its realisation, which would meet the ends of justice. Rest of the direction(s) of the Tribunal remain same. 14. I hold that the claimants of MACP No.62 of 2003 (First Appeal No.843 of 2010) are entitled to get the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,30,660/- with 7.5% p.a. interest from the date of filing the claim petition till its realisation, which would meet the ends of justice. Rest of the direction(s) of the Tribunal remain same. 15. Out of the above enhanced compensation, ST Corporation shall deposit 70% of the enhanced compensation including interest and cost before the learned Tribunal concerned within six weeks from today. Balance 30% of the enhanced compensation including interest and cost shall be deposited by driver and owner of Jeep. Insurance Company of Jeep shall at first instance deposit the said amount before the learned Tribunal concerned within six weeks from today and shall be entitled to recover the same from owner of the Jeep on the basis of this judgment by executing it. 16. For the reasons recorded above, the present appeals are partly allowed. 17. Insurance Company of Jeep shall at first instance deposit the said amount before the learned Tribunal concerned within six weeks from today and shall be entitled to recover the same from owner of the Jeep on the basis of this judgment by executing it. 16. For the reasons recorded above, the present appeals are partly allowed. 17. The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimants, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.