1. These two appeals arise out of a judgment dated 28.04.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby compensation of Rs. 39,74,135/- was granted in favour of Appellants no.1 to 5 in MAC APP.730/2012 and Respondents no.1 to 5 in MAC APP.978/2012.

2. As per the case set up before the Claims Tribunal, the accident was caused because of negligence of drivers of van no.DL-7CB-3884 and truck no.HR-55G-9576. It was claimed before the Claims Tribunal that deceased Ramesh Kumar Singh was earning a salary of Rs. 36,760/- per month. After deducting allowance personal to the deceased, the Claims Tribunal deducted 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses and adopted the multiplier of 15 as per the age of the deceased (37 years) to compute the loss of dependency at Rs. 39,24,135/-. The Claims Tribunal further awarded certain sums towards non-pecuniary damages.

3. The Maruti Van bearing registration no.DL-7CB-3884 was allegedly owned and being driven by Sanjay at the time of the accident whereas Brahm Prakash was the registered owner of the van. The truck involved in the accident was being driven by Respondent Anil Kumar. It was owned by Rajan Dua and was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited.

4. In the absence of any appeal by the driver, owner or the insurer of the two vehicles, the finding on negligence has attained finality.

5. For the sake of convenience, the Appellants in MAC APP.730/2012, who are the Claimants before the Claims Tribunal and Respondents no.1 to 5 in MAC APP.978/2012 shall be referred to as the Claimants. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, who was the insurer of truck bearing registration no.HR-55G-9576 shall be referred to as the insurer. Sanjay, who was the purchaser of Maruti van bearing registration no.DL-7CB-3884 from Brahm Prakash shall be referred to as the owner, whereas Respondent Brahm Prakash, who is Respondent no.5 in MAC APP.730/2012 and Appellant in MAC APP.978/2012 shall be referred to as the registered owner.

6. Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Claimants:-

(i) Deceased Rakesh Kumar Singh was in permanent employment having good future prospects, the Claims Tribunal ought to have made addition of 50% towards future prospects;

(ii) Compensation awarded towards non-pecuniary damages is on the lower side; and

(iii) In case of composite negligence, the victim is entitled to recover compensation from either or both of the tortfeasors. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Vivek Puri v. Man Mohan Singh & Ors., FAO 161/2000, decided on 03.09.2012.

7. In the appeal preferred by the registered owner, the plea taken by him is that in accordance with the provision of Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the M.V. Act), he had informed the concerned registering authority about the sale of the vehicle within the stipulated time and therefore, he had no liability at all.

8. The contention raised on behalf of the insurer is that since composite negligence has been held and the extent of negligence of each vehicle was determined by the Claims Tribunal and the same has attained finality, the Claimants cannot be permitted to enforce the award in entirety against the insurer, i.e., the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation which falls to the share of the owner and insurer of Maruti van bearing registration no.DL-7CB-3884. Further, in any case, if this Court finds that the insurer of the truck is liable to pay the compensation as a joint tortfeasor, it ought to be granted recovery rights.

MULTIPLICAND AND QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION

9. I have the Trial Court record before me. The salary slips of deceased Ramesh Kumar Singh for the period of April, 2009 to October, 2009 were placed on record. The salary slips reveal uniform gross salary of Rs. 23,358/- per month, there is a second salary slip for the month of October, 2009