Swamikkannu, J.
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act by the petitioners (1) Pujamma, (2) Krishna Reddy and (3) Nagaraj against the award dated 10.10.1980 in M.O.P. No. 121/79 which was disposed of by a common judgment along with M.O.P. No. 304/79 finding that the lorry APC 5587 was proceeding on the left side of the road and was proceeding towards Bangalore and that the lorry MYK 5890 ought to have proceeded on the northern side of the road; but it went on the wrong side and hit against the lorry APC 5587. Therefore, the lorry MYK 5890 was driven rashly and negligently and caused the accident and as such point No. 1 in M.O.P. No. 121/79 was found accordingly. Under the same circumstances, the Tribunal also found that the lorry APC 5587 was not driven rashly and negligently and there was no composite negligence. It was found on point No. 2 in M.O.P. No. 121 of 1979 accordingly. In M.O.P. No. 121 of 1979, the award of which is the subject matter of appeal, it was also held that the first petitioner/first appellant has to be awarded a sum of Rs. 7,200 as compensation. In the result in M.O.P. No. 121 of 1979, an award for a sum of Rs. 7,200 in favour of the first petitioner/first appellant herein with pro-costs was given. The petition was dismissed as against the petitioners 2 and 3 appellants 2 and 3 herein. The fourth respondent was directed to deposit the amount in Court within three months failing which the first petitioner will be entitled to interest at 6% per annum from the date of the award of the Tribunal till the date of deposit. This award was arrived at by the Tribunal on a consideration of the evidence adduced before it both oral and documentary.
2. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal is that the first petitioner is the widow and the second and third petitioners are the children of the deceased Anjaneyalu Reddy and they had filed a petition before the Tribunal to pass an award for Rs. 1,00,000 for the death of the deceased. The accident occurred on 1.11.1978 at about 5.30 a.m. near Santhavelur on the G.N.T. Road. The deceased was a vegetable vendor and agriculturist. The deceased was transporting vegetables in the lorry bearing No. MYK 5890 from Doddakadathur to Madras and he was travelling in the said lorry. On 1.11.1978 at about 8.30 a.m. when the lorry was nearing Santhavellore village another lorry bearing No. APC 5587 came from the opposite direction at a terrific speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry MYK 5890 which was also driven rashly and negligently. The deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was a good business-man. But for the accident, he would have lived for another thirty years and would be helpful to the petitioners/appellants herein. The deceased was 52 years old at the time of accident. His income was Rs. 1,000 per month. There was damage to the vegetables worth Rs. 10,000. The petitioners/appellants herein claimed Rs. 1,00,000 towards compensation. They claimed Rs. 500 towards transport to hospital, Rs. 10,000 pain and suffering and Rs. 10,000 towards damage to clothing and articles.
3. The first respondent filed a written statement containing the following contentions: The accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the lorry MYK 5890. The first respondent's lorry APC 5587 was stationed at the time of accident. It was parked on Its extreme left side of the road. The second respondent's lorry driver had driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the first respondent's lorry. The 1st respondent's lorry was smashed in the accident and this respondent had to spend Rs. 26,000 for the repairs. He could not do his lorry business for nearly two months. The first respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
4. The second respondent filed a written statement containing the following contentions: The age and the earning capacity of the deceased are not admitted. This respondent has not authorised the deceased to travel by the vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner's are not entitled to any compensation. The driver of this vehicle was not authorised to take any passenger. The owner is not liable. The vehicle is insured and the Insurance Company is liable to pa compensation. The negligence was on the part of the lorry driver of APC 5587. In any event the claim of Rs. 1,00,000 is excessive.
5. The third respondent filed a written statement containing the following contentions: The nature of the accident as described in the application is not admitted. It is a case of composite negligence. The age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased are not admitted. The amounts claimed are excessive. In any event this respondent's liability is restricted to Rs, 15,000 only.
6. The fourth respondent filed a written statement containing the following contentions: The age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased are denied. This respondent is not liable to pay Rs. 1,00,000 by way of compensation. The claim is exaggerated. The lorry was driven cautiously at a moderate speed on its proper side of the road. The lorry APC 5587 was driven in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner. The lorry came on the wrong side of the road at a terrific speed and hit the lorry MYK 5890. The lorry MYK 5890 skidded and the accident occurred. The deceased was a non-paying passenger in the lorry MYK 5890. The vehicle MYK 5890 is only a goods vehicle. The deceased was not entitled to travel in the lorry MYK 5890. The policy issued by this respondent does not cover the non-fare-paying passenger's liability. Therefore, this respondent is not liable to pay compensation.
7. The following points were framed for consideration by the Tribunal:
1. Whether the lorry MYK 5890 was driven rashly and negligently?
2. Whether the lorry APC 5587 was driven rashly and negligently?
3. To what amount to which the petitioners are entitled?
8. As already stated the Tribunal held that the lorry MYK 5890 was driven rashly and negligently and caused the accident and found point No. 1 accordingly. Under the same circumstances, the Tribunal also found that the lorry APC 5587 was not driven rashly and negligently and there was no composite negligence. So, the Tribunal found point No. 2 accordingly. Under point No. 3 the Tribunal found that the Court is unable to award compensation of Rs. 15,000 towards loss of property during the accident. The report was given by the village munsif of Santhavellore. P.W. 1 has stated that she has not complained about the vegetables in the police station. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the circumstance shows that the deceased was not transporting vegetables. As there was no clear proof about the income, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 150 per month and then came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 1,800 should be deducted from Rs. 9,000 and the first petitioner is to be awarded Rs. 7,200 as compensation.
9. On behalf of the petitioners, the first petitioner examined herself as P.W. 1. Ex. A1, F.I.R. dated 1.11.78 in Cr. No. 707/78 on the file of the Sriperumbudur Police Station, Ex. A2 investigation report dated 1.11.1978 in Cr. No. 707/78 and Ex. A3 sketch in Cr. No. 707 of 1978 of Sriperumbudur Police Station were filed on behalf of the petitioners. R.W.1 Rathanachari, R.W.2 Kuppusami and R.W. 3 Natarajan, P.W. 4 Rajendra Naidu, and P.W. 5 Ram and were examined on behalf of the respondents. Exs. B1 to B53 were filed on behalf of the respondents.
10. The points for consideration in this appeal are:
(1) Having found that the insured vehicles MYK 5890 was driven rashly and negligently and that consequently, the 4th respondent was liable to pay the amount awarded, has the Tribunal erred in disallowing the claims made by the petitioners?
(2) Is the Tribunal wrong in holding that the deceased was not earning a sum of Rs. 1,000 a month especially in the light of the evidence of P.W.I which according to the appellants, is unimpeachable?
(3) Has the Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim made for loss of property, namely, loss of vegetables worth about Rs. 15,000?
(4) What is the just and adequate compensation that can be awarded to the appellants on the basis of the evidence available on record?
11. POINT Nos. 1 to 4 : Before actually dealing with the various points raised on behalf of the appellants herein, let us know what we mean by 'composite negligence'. There is distinction between a 'contributory negligence and a 'composite negligence'. The contributory negligence applies solely on the conduct of the injured on the deceased. It means that there has been an act of omission on his part which has materially contributed to the damage. Where a person is injured or his death occurs without any negligence on his part but as a result of the combined effect of the negligence of two other persons, it is not a case of contributory negligence but it is a case of what is styled as 'composite negligence' In Parsani Devi v. The State of Haryana and Ors. 1973 A.C.J. 531, it was held that if due to the negligence of A and B, Z has been injured in motor accident, Z can sue both A and B for the whole damage. In this regard, the decision in Hira Devi and Ors. v. Bhaba Kanti Das & Ors. 1977 A.C.J. 293, may also be usefully looked into. It is well settled in law that where a person is injured or dies in a motor accident which occurs not on account of his negligence but because the drivers of colliding vehicles were negligent, the claimants are entitled to damage jointly and severally from the negligent respondents. In Sushila Rani Sharma and Ors. v. Som Nath and Ors. 1974 A.C.J. 505, it is held that every wrongdoer is liable for the whole damage and it does not matter whether they acted, between themselves as equals, it was held in V. Rajeswara Rao v. Karna Audamma and Ors. 1977 A.C.J. 462 (Appeal Cases), that the Courts have however held the drivers of both the vehicles, causing the accident to share the responsibility for the accident to the extent of half and half.
12. Learned Counsel for the appellants relies on the decision in C. Narayanan v. Madras State Palm Gur Sammelan and Anr. 1974 A.C.J. 479, for the proposition that a passenger carried by a lorry will not be covered by the insurance policy unless he is proved to be a passenger travelling by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment. Learned Counsel for the appellants also refers to the decision in The Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd., (Metro) rep. by its Managing Director v. I.D. Sohanraj Jain and Anr. 1986 T.L.N.J. 321 and the decision in United India Insurance Co. Madurai and Anr. v. Mr. N. Janarthanam and Anr. C.M.A. Nos. 645 and 782 of 1981 judgment dated 12.12.1986, for the proposition that the average life of an Indian can be taken at 55 years. The appellants have restricted their claim in this civil miscellaneous appeal to only Rs. 50,000 less the compensation awarded, that is Rs. 7,200 which comes to Rs. 42,800. The claim disallowed by the Tribunal is Rs. 92,800. The appeal is confined to the question of adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appellants are the petitioners who claimed compensation in their petition M.O.P. No. 121/79.
13. The widow and sons of the deceased Anjaneyalu Reddy are the petitioners/appellants in this appeal. The deceased was a vegetable vendor and agriculturist. The deceased was transporting vegetables at the time of the occurrence, according to the appellants. It is relevant in this connection to note that the petitioners' definite case is that both the lorries were driven rashly and negligently and caused the accident. It is alleged that the lorry APC 5587 was stationed at the extreme left side of the road and the lorry MYK 5890 was driven rashly and negligently and caused the accident. The driver of the lorry MYF 5890 stated that he had driven the lorry slowly and it was raining and the lorry skidded. He has stated that the lorry APC 5587 was not stationary at the time of the occurrence. It was coming at a terrific speed on the opposite direction and dashed against the lorry. The point to be determined is whether the lorry APC 5587 was driven rashly and negligently. In support of the case of the petitioners, the first petitioner was examined as P.W. 1. She has stated that her husband Anjaneyalu Reddy died in the accident on 1.11.1978 at 5.30 a.m. The accident occurred at Santhavellore on Madras-Bangalore High Road. His age was 52 years at the time of the accident. He was travelling in the lorry with the vegetables. At the time of the accident, he was transporting 150 bags of vegetables in the lorry. He was travelling with the vegetable in the lorry. She has further stated that the value of the vegetables transported by her husband on that day was Rs. 15,000. He was earning a sum of Rs. 1,000 per month, according to the first appellant. She is not the witness to the accident. No other witness was examined to prove the rash and negligent act of the driver of both the lorries.
14. Ex. A1 is the copy of the F.I.R. The driver of the lorry MYK 5890 was charge--sheeted under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A, I.P.C. The driver of the lorry APC 5587 was not charge-sheeted. The village Munsif of Santhavellore gave the complaint to the police. In the complaint, the village Munsif has stated that the lorry MYK 5890 dashed against the lorry APC 5587 and it was proceeding in the opposite direction and the lorry MYK 5890 was standing across the road after hitting the lorry APC 5587. It is stated that the lorry MYK 5890 was proceeding towards east. Ex. A2 is the investigation report regarding the accident. The village Munsif of Santhavellore stated that the lorry MYK 5890 was standing across the road after hitting the lorry APC 5587. This shows that the lorry MYK 5890 driven rashly and negligently and went on the wrong side of the road and hit against the lorry APC 5587. The deceased was found on the middle of the road. This shows that the lorry MYK 5890 was not keeping to the left side of the road. Ex. A3 is the plan drawn in respect of the accident. Ex. A3 had been perused by the Tribunal and it was marked by. consent. From the rough sketch Ex. P3 it is seen that the road Bangalore to Madras runs west-east and the occurrence took place by the vehicle MYK 5890 more or less remaining across the road north south. The vehicle APC 5587 is seen on the pavement which is about 5 ft. and the breadth of the road is 21 ft. There is also another pavement on the northern side which is about 5' 4'. It is in between the survey stones 52/8 and 52/6, the occurrence has taken place. The lorry APC 5587 was proceeding on the left side of the road and was proceeding towards Bangalore. The lorry MYK 5890 ought to have proceeded on the northern side of the road; but it went on the wrong side and hit against the lorry APC 5587. Therefore, it is clear that the lorry MYK 5890 was driven rashly and negligently and caused the accident. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal is correct in having held that the lorry APC 5587 was not driven rashly and negligently and there was no composite negligence.
15. Now let us discuss about the other points raised in the appeal including the point relating to the quantum of compensation : The appellants are the widow and sons of the deceased Anjaneyalu. He was travelling in the lorry MYK 5890. Ex. B52 is the insurance policy. The insured vehicle is MYK 5890. This was driven rashly and negligently. Therefore the fourth respondent is liable to deposit the amount in Court. The lorry was permitted to be used for the conveyance of passengers for hire or reward. Therefore the fourth respondent company is liable to pay the amount awarded. P.W. 1 has stated that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 1,000 per month. There was no record to show the income of the deceased. There is also no record to show that the deceased was transporting 150 bags of vegetables worth Rs. 15,000 on the date of the accident. The report was given by the village Munsif of Santhavellore. Nothing is stated about the transport of vegetables in the lorry MYK 5890. P.W.I has stated that she has not complained about the vegetables in the police station. In the cross-examination, P.W.I has stated that the value of the vegetables was Rs. 10,000. The contradictions with regard to the value of the vegetables given in the petition and in the evidence clearly shows that there is nothing wrong in coming to the conclusion that the deceased was not transporting vegetables on that date. The driver of the lorry MYK 5890 was examined as R.W. 1. He has stated that the lorry APC 5587 dashed against his lorry and his lorry was turned to the right side. He has stated that the vegetables were transported by the deceased in the lorry. As there is no clear proof about the income of the deceased, the Tribunal is correct in having fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 150 per month. Allowing a sum of Rs. 75 for his own expenses, it can be safely fixed that he was contributing a sum of Rs. 75 per month towards the maintenance of his family. The contribution thus comes to Rs. 900 per year. The deceased was aged 52 years at the time of incident. One view taken by this Court is that the average span of life in India is about 60 years and the another view being that it is 65 year. Taking a via-media of the views, the average span of life in India may be fixed at 60 years. Fixing the average span of life at 60 years, the deceased would have lived and contributed to his family for a further period of eight years. As regards the income of the deceased the Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 200 per month. Allowing a sum of Rs. 75 per his own expenses, I am fixing the contribution of the deceased to his family at Rs.I25 per month and the contribution for a year is Rs. 1,500. The deceased was aged 52 years at the time of his death. Taking the average span of life in India as 60 years, the deceased would have lived for another eight years. So, he would have contributed to his family for a further period of eight years. Therefore the contribution his family would be Rs. 12,000. 20% of this amount should be deducted for lump sum grant. Therefore, I am of opinion that a sum of Rs. 2400 should be deducted from Rs. 12,000. Then the compensation payable will be Rs. 9,600. The petitioners/-appellants 2 and 3 are majors. So, they are not entitled to compensation. Hence, -the first petitioner first appellant is awarded a sum of Rs. 9,600 as compensation. I find this point accordingly. In other words the award of Rs. 7,200 given by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 9,600 under this head by this Court.
16. In the result, there will be an award for Rs. 9,600 in favour of the first appellant. The appeal is dismissed against appellants 2 and 3. The fourth respondent shall deposit the amount in Court within three months from to-day, failing which the first appellant will be entitled to interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Tribunal has held that the interest is payable only from the date of award. It is not correct. Interest has to be awarded from the date of petition in so far as the amount of compensation granted by the Court is concerned. The appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. Under the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.