S.K. Dubey, J. -- 1. The two appeals have been filed against the award dated 24.12.1991 passed in Claim Case No. 1 of 1989, by the Member, Motor Accident" Claim Tribunal, Datia (for short, the 'Tribunal').

2. Misc. Appeal No. 74 of 1992 is of the claimant" for enhancement of compensation and for setting aside the award so far it relates to apportionment of the liability of payment of compensation in equa1 proportion by the insurer and owners of the two offending vehicles.

3. Misc. Appeal No. 66 of 1992 is by the owner and driver of the passenger bus No. CPW 6790, involved in the accident, which challenges the award as excessive and also the award specifying the amount of compensation payable by the Insurance Company limiting to Rs. 50,000/- of it statutory liability under section 95 (2) (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as amended (or short, the 'Act of 1939')

4. Claimant No.1 is the widow and claimant No.2 is the daughter of the deceased Arun Kumar, who died because of the motor accident., occurred on 23.9.1988. On the day of accident the deceased as a pillion-rider on scooter No. MPI 8656 driven by Ashok Kumar who was going from Bhander side to Datia; a passenger bus driven by respondent No.2, owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.3 (in Misc. Appeal No. 74 of 1992) was coming from the side of Datia. Near the octroi post, on the left side of the turning of the road, the bus dashed against the scooter, as a result of which the accident occurred, wherein the deceased received severe multiple injuries. The deceased was taken to the hospital and from there to J.A. Groups of Hospital, Gwalior, but ultimately could not be survived. The claimants in their petition claimed the compensation of Rupees 5,95,000/- from the owner driver and the Insurance Company of the passenger bus without impleading owner, driver and Insurance Company of scooter as parties to the petition. The Tribunal after appreciating evidence adduced by the parties, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the two drivers, i.e., the drivers of the bus and scooter, who equally contributed to the accident.

5. While dealing with issues No.4 of 10, relating to compensation, the Tribunal held that the deceased, who was a law graduate and was entering into legal profession, could have earned at least Rs. 1,000/- per month initially and gradually he would have earned much more by the passage of time and experience. Taking minimum monthly income of Rs. 1,000/- into consideration, the Tribunal calculated the dependency at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month, yearly, Rs. 6,000/-, and by applying the multiplier of 20, determined the dependency of Rs. 1,20,000/-. Out of the amount so determined, the tribunal made a deduction of to per cent for uncertainties of life and lump sum payment. In the head of loss of company and love and affection, the tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/-; for consortium to the widow Rs. 10,000/-; for loss of estate Rs. 20,000/-; Rs. 500/ were awarded as the cost of the wrist watch; Rs. 500/- towards funeral expenses; Rs. 1,500/- for performing rites of the thirteenth day; and Rs. 2,000/- in the head of medical expenses and transportation charges incurred in treatment of the deceased.

6. Though, the Tribunal held that it was a case of composite negligence, as the driver, owner of the scooter and insurer were not made parties, apportioned the compensation in equal proportion and specified the amount of Rs. 74,500/-, payable by the owner, driver and the insurer of the bus with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum and costs. Out of the said amount, the tribunal further made a direction fixing the liability of the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- to meet the statutory liability under section 95 of the Act of 1939 with its interest and costs. It is this award, out of which the two appeals arise, as aforesaid.

7. We heard Shri S.S. Kushwah, counsel for the claimants/appellants, Shri Lokendra Gupt