In a case of contributory negligence, in the absence of a party to the proceedings, the entire amount cannot be realized from the remaining joint tort feasors because they would not be in a position to realize from the other joint tort feasors, who are not parties before the Court, the proportionate amount to the extent of their contributory negligence.

R. S. Mongia, J.

1. This judgment of ours will dispose of L P. A. No.677, 673, o74, 675, 676, and 879 of 1986.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 8th September, 1982, at about 4 P M on the G T. Road near village Knara Kheri, an accident took place between a jeep (PUG 8240) driven by one Ram Chander and a bus belonging to the Rajasthan Slate Road Transport Corporation (hereinaffer called the Corporation), bearing Registration No RRB 7291, driven by one Nand Rara There were seven occupants in the jeep, out of whom four died and three received injuries. The legal-representatives of the deceased and the injured filed separate claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It may be highlighted here that in none of the claim petitions, the driver of the owner of she jeep involved in the accident was made party Only the Corporation, which owned the bus, was made a party. One of the injured, namely, Chander Pal claimed only Rs.10,000/- as compensation; while in each of the other claim petitions, Rs, 40,000/- were claimed as compensation. The entire blame of the accident was sought to be placed on the driver of the jeep by the Corporation. On the contest of the parties, the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the claimant has no locus standi to file the petition 2. Whether the petition is bad for non joindor of necessary parties namely driver and owner of jeep 3. Whether the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of the jeep No. PUG 8240 or the driver of the Bus No RRB 7291? 4. To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom 5. Relief.

3. On the evidence led in the case, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of trie jeep and the driver of the bus were both negligent and their contributory negligence was fifty-fifty Since the owner and the driver of the jeep were not made parties, 50 per cent of compensation found due was awarded against the Corporation by a common award dated 30 April, 1984. Against the aforesaid award, F. A. Os Nos 754 and 851 to 856. of 1984 were filed by !he Corporation in which Cross objections were filed by the claimants.

4. Ln F. A. O.754 of 1984, it was found that deceased was 20 years old and was helping his father in cultivation His dependency was found to be Rs.4,00j/- per year and after applying multiplier of 20 years, it was held that the father was entitled to compensation of Rs.80,000/-, but since liability of Corporation was 50 per sent, the award of Rs.40,000/- was made against it. Similarly,-in F. O. N.886 of 1984, award of Rs.30,000/- had been given against the Corporation after finding that on the death of the wife of the claim in, aged 23 years, Rs.60,000/- were payable as compensation as she was helping her husband in cultivation. The award against the Corporation was restricted to Rs.30.000/-, as the liability of the Corporation was 50 per cent In F A. O 854 of 1984, the husband of the deceased aged 35 years, who was helping him In cultivation, was found entitled to Rs.48,00/- as compensation and since the liability of Corporation was 50 per cent, Rs.24,000/- were award. In F. A. O. N.852 of 1984, the deceased being 40 years of age, the dependency was found to be Rs.36,000/- at the rate of Rs.300/- per month, by applying multiplier of 10. The claimant was awarded Rs.18,000/- on account of the corporations liability being 50%.

5. It may be observed that if in F A. Os. No.852, 854 and 856 of 198, applications under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure were filed by the claimants who sought enhancement of tin compensation than claimed in the original claim petitions (which was restricted to Rs.40.000/), on the ground that at the relevant time advalorem court-fee was payable and since the claimants were not in a position to pay the court-fee, full amount was not claimed made later on amendment had been made for payable less court-fee, enhanced compen