JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mohd Asim Zulfiquar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sushil Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent in both the appeals.

2. Both these appeals are preferred by legal heirs of the deceased which challenge the judgment and award dated 9.5.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Kaushambi (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No.57 of 2014 awarding a sum of Rs.50,29,968/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7% for the death of Dr. Mohd. Asif, who is son of the claimant-appellant and the award dated 9.5.2018 passed by the Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 56 of 2014 awarding a sum of Rs.3,70,200/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7% for the death of one Smt. Kaniza Begum, who is the daughter-in-law of claimant-appellant and wife of the deceased Dr. Mohd Asif. The appeals challenge the quantum and finding of negligence returned by the Tribunal holding the deceased doctor also a tort feasor.

3. Facts as per the claim petition are that on 10.8.2013 at about 12.00 noon when the deceased reached near Kakora, Police Station Kokhraj, District Kaushambi, one Mahendra Yadav, driver of Vehicle Trailer No. R J 14 J F 4210 rashly and negligently drove his vehicle and dashed the Figo Car (bearing Registration No. UP 70 BZ 6881) of claimant's son who along with his wife Kaniza Begum @ Zeenat Mumtaz was coming from Locality G.T.B. Nagar, Kareily City, Allahabad to his home Kajiyana Kara, Police Station Saini, District Kaushambi. On account of the accident, both of them, namely, Dr. Mohd. Asif and Kaneejz Begum succumbed to their injuries on the spot.

4. The deceased Dr. Mohd. Asif was a resident doctor in Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital and his income was Rs.41070/- +Rs.7875/-=Rs. 48,945/-. The accident is not in dispute which occurred on 10.8.2013 between two vehicles-one driven by Dr. Mohd. Asif which proved to be fatal to him and his wife who were 29 and 27 years of age respectively. Mother of Mohd. Asif and mother-in-law of Kaniza Begum @ Zeenat Mumtaz had filed the claim petitions.

5. The issue to be decided is who is to be considered to be legal representative. No one except class two heir, that is, mother-in-law has come before this Court and her claim has been accepted by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company or the owner of the other vehicle has not challenged the compensation awarded by Tribunal.

6. The counsel for appellant has contended that deduction of the amount, which was to be paid to the mother-in-law could not have been deducted as the deceased wife was not a tort feasor. It is submitted that even if this court accepts the findings of the Tribunal that deceased, who was driving the car was co-author of accident and negligent, the amount awardable to legal heir could not be deducted, this finding is error apparent on the face of the record, in view of the Judgment of Apex Court in Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & Others, 2015 LawSuit (SC) 469 and that proportionate amount could not have been deducted from the amount admissible to the claimant in the said MACT.

Negligence and Compensation

7. The issue of negligence will have to be considered from the facts as adduced as one of the deceased was a non tort feasor and qua the legal heir it would be case of composite negligence and, hence, whether the Tribunal was right in deducting compensation admissible to heir/legal representative of non tort feasor has to be considered. The Apex Court in Khenyei (supra) has held as under:-

"4. It is a case of composite negligence where injuries have been caused to the claimants by combined wrongful act of joint tort feasors. In a case of accident caused by negligence of joint tort feasors, all the persons who aid or counsel or direct or join in committal of a wrongful act, are liable. In such case, the liability is always joint and s