S.S. Jha, J.
1. This appeal is by the claimants. Claimants have challenged the order passed by the VII Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Gwalior whereby their claim petition has been dismissed on the ground that claimants have not impleaded the owner and driver of the offending vehicle as party in the claim petition.
2. Counsel for Insurance Company submitted that claim petition is rightly dismissed.
3. From the evidence on record of eye-witness A W-4 Ranveer Singh it is apparent that deceased was travelling in jeep No. M.P. 07-8751. The said jeep was driven by Shailendra. Jeep collided with an unknown truck on the centre of road at about 2.30 in the morning. Both the truck and jeep were driven in a rash and negligent manner. Report was lodged at the police station. Trial Court placed reliance upon the F.I.R. in which AW 4 Ranveer Singh has mentioned that accident occurred on account of negligence of the truck driver and held that owner and driver of the said truck were necessary party to the claim petition. From the evidence on record it is apparent that accident occurred on account of composite negligence of the drivers of the two vehicles and on account of composite negligence of two vehicles deceased Babloo @ Surendra Singh died in the accident.
4. It is settled principle of law that in the case of composite negligence, claimant is free to claim compensation from the driver and owner of any of the vehicles involved in the accident. The claimants have impleaded owner and driver of the offending jeep. It is also true that unknown truck was involved in the accident and claimants had no knowledge about the owner and driver of the said vehicle. In such circumstances, claimants cannot be compelled to implead owner and driver of the unknown truck whose name and address were not known to the claimants and on that count claim petition cannot be dismissed. It is the duty of the Claims Tribunal to determine the compensation payable to the claimants. Counsel for respondent insurance Company has supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal.
5. Therefore, the order passed by the Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim petition is set aside and it is held that claim petition was maintainable against owner, driver and Insurance Company of the jeep.
6. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, witnesses have deposed that appellant was serving with a Excise Contractor. Claimants have filed salary certificate issued by AW 2 Rinku Shivhare. Rinku Shivhara has admitted in para 6 of his cross-examination that the salary certificate Exhibit P-8 was not issued by him after going through the records but was issued on the advice of an Advocate. Therefore, the said salary certificate has rightly been rejected by the Claims Tribunal. It may be mentioned that the appellant left behind his widow and his daughter, his father, mother and two younger brothers. It is true that the compensation will be payable to widow and his daughter and mother. Rest of the claimants are not entitled for the compensation.
7. On examining the facts and the evidence of AW 1 Rajkumari Bai it is apparent that earlier deceased was working as labour in the mines and few days before accident he started working with Excise Contractor. Thus, it can safely be held that deceased was earning around Rs. 2,500 per month i.e. Rs. 30,000 per annum. He was spending 1/3rd of his income upon himself and remaining 2/3rd income was spent on his family. Deceased was aged about 25 years. Therefore, deceased will be entitled for compensation amounting to Rs. 20,000 x 17 : Rs. 3,40,000 plus further compensation of Rs. 10,000 under various heads such as funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium, etc., etc. Total compensation is determined at Rs. 3,50,000. Over and above this amount, claimants will be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of application.
Appeal succeeds and is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.