1. A comprehensive insurance policy carries unlimited liability. 2. In cases of composite negligence, the claimants can claim any amount from any of the negligent parties or their insurance companies.

1. - These three appeals are related to award dated 19th April, 1984 passed by Shri V.P. Agrawal, Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in MACT Case No. 5 of 1978.

2. On 24th June, 1974 late Rao Dheer Singh was going from Manoharpura to Shapura in his car No. RJL 8207. The fuel abruptly exhausted and the car was stopped allegedly on the left side of the road and the driver was asked to go to Shapura to bring the petrol. Rao Dheer Singh remained sitting in the car little knowing that instead of petrol the cruel fate is going to bring death to him by accident.

3. At about 1.00 a.m. truck RJR 6607 driven by Tara Chand allegedly rashly & negligently dashed against the standing car resulting in instantaneous death of Rao Dheer Singh.

4. On the above bedrock of facts a claim petition was filed by Gunwant Kumari widow of Rao Dheer Singh two sons Rao Rajendra Singh and Rao Shri Surendra Singh. Maji Hawa Kanwar mother of the deceased Bhanwarini Anurekha and Smt. Chandra Kala daughters of deceased Dheer Singh. The claim was of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The non-petitioner owner of RJR 6607 and the insurance company and the driver contested the claim. The driver of RJR 6607 came with the plea that the truck No. DHG 1625 came from behind his truck and dashed against his truck leading to the accident. Truck driver and owner of this were also injured. Eleven issues were framed. Evidence was recorded. Ultimately the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was contributory negligence of the drivers of the two trucks mentioned above, 90 percent being of the first truck and 10 per cent of the second truck, the first truck being RJR 6607 and the second truck being DHG 1625. The plea of the first truck owner that the car was being parked a wrong place without: parking light, was not accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the car was being parked in Kachcha and the truck went in kachha and knocked the car from behind. The second truck also came in contact from behind and therefore its negligence was computed to 10 per cent only.

5. The Tribunal on the evidence decided that the deceased Rao Dheer Singh used to earn sufficiently good amount and out of his earning per month Rs. 2,000/- was the dependency of the family members and they have been deprived of this amount permanently on account of death of Rao Dheer Singh. Dheer Singh at the time of his death was 38 years of age. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 years. The Tribunal did not allow any compensation for the suffering in the form of consortium or loss of love and affection either to the widow or to sons, daughters, mother etc. The Tribunal was of (sic) opinion that the negligence was contributory and therefore, apportioned (sic) amount. The Tribunal also held liable the two insurance company, insurer of both the trucks and limited their liability upto Rs. 50,000/- each. The Tribunal absolved the car driver and the insurance company of the car from any liability what so ever after holding that it was being parked in Kachcha and there was no fault negligence or mistake of the car driver of the car, or owner in this accident. Against the above, where as Gunwant Kumari and others have filed (sic) appeals 230 and 198 of 1985 for increase of the compensation & also for (sic)ding insurance companies of both the trucks liable for the whole amount, Sardar Sadhu Singh owner of the truck RJR 6607 has filed the appeal No. 231 (sic)1985 for firstly absolving himself from any liability on the ground that there (sic)as no negligence or rashness of his driver, secondly for holding that the liability of the other truck was proved as real responsibility of rashness of negligence of its driver and further that the car was also parked in between (sic)e road and therefore there was contributory negligence for which the insurance company of the car should also be held liable in any case. It would thus (sic) seen that there is a multi dimensional debate of vario