Muni Lal Verma, J.

1. The circumstances giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated as under:

2. Banarsi Dass Sharma was employed as Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, in the State of Haryana and he was posted as such at Sirsa in the month of August, 1969. He was drawing Rs. 560/- per month as his pay and Rs. 146/- per month as dearness allowance. On August 27, 1969, at about 10 a.m., he was proceeding in Government jeep No. HRH-9328 (hereinafter called the jeep) from Fatehabad to Sirsa. The said jeep was driven by Ram Singh. When the jeep was about 12 miles from Sirsa, truck No. HRK-540 (herein after called the truck) which was driven by Som Nath (now Respondent 1) appeared there from the opposite direction. There was collision between the truck and the jeep, as a result of which the jeep was turned turtle and it caught fire, Banarsi Dass Sharma sustained injuries and burns on account of the said accident. Some officials chanced to pass that side and they carried Banarsi Dass Sharma in another jeep to Civil Hospital, Sirsa, but he expired on the way. The aforesaid truck belonged to Phagu Ram (Respondent 2) and it was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Bombay (hereinafter called the Assurance Company), Respondent 3. Mrs. Sushila Rani is the widow, Hari Har Sarup and Deepak are sons, and Vijay Laxmi is the daughter of Banarsi Dass Sharma. Therefore, they brought a claim for recovery of Rs. 2 lakhs from the Respondents, pleading that the aforesaid accident, which resulted in the death of Banarsi Dass Sharma, had occurred due to negligent driving of the truck by Som Nath. The aforesaid claim was resisted by the Respondents. The facts, that the accident, wherein the truck and jeep were involved, had taken place and it resulted in the death of Banarsi Dass Sharma, were not disputed. The other material allegations of the claimants (now the Appellants) were controverted and it was pleaded that the accident had taken place due to the negligent driving of the jeep by Ram Singh, that the claim petition was bad on account of misjoinder of parties, and the Assurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the claim was tried on the following issues:

1. Whether the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Som Nath driver, and, if so, its effect

2. To what amount of compensation, if any, the Petitioners are entitled to and from whom Onus on parties.

3. Whether the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation Onus on Respondent No. 3.

4. Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder of parties, and, if so, its effect Onus on Respondents.

5. Relief.

3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hissar (hereinafter called the Tribunal) decided issues No. 3 and 4 against the Respondents. It assessed compensation amount at Rs. 10,065/- under issue No. 2, but finding issue No. 1 in the negative, it dismissed the claim with costs. Dissatisfied with the said result, the claimants have come to this Court in appeal.

4. Mr. V.P. Sharda, learned Counsel for the claimants, challenging the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issues No. 1 and 2, has contended that evidence present on the record was misappreciated and had not been properly weighed in the circumstances of the case, by it: and conclusions arrived at by it (the Tribunal), that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of driver of the jeep and the compensation to which the claimants could be entitled, amounted to Rs. 10,065/-, are not warranted by facts or law. The aforesaid contentions, in my opinion, are wellfounded.

5. The facts that Banarsi Dass Sharma was travelling in the jeep and it belonged to the State of Haryana and it was being driven towards the side of Sirsa; that the truck belonged to Phagu Mai and it was being driven by his driver Som Nath towards Fatehabad; that there had been collision between the jeep and the truck, the impact being between the left side of the truck and the left side of the jeep, and as a result of the said collision the jeep had been thrown to the extreme left side of the truck and it had turned turtle and had caught fire; and that in the said accident Banarsi Dass Sharma had sustained injuries and burns, as a result of which he had died, are not disputed.

6. Ram Singh (A.W. 3) aud Gurcharan Singh (A.W. 6) have, no doubt, deposed that the jeep was being driven at normal speed on the left hand side of the road and it was the truck which was being driven on the right hand side (i.e. wrong side) of the road and at an excessive speed. Both of them depicting fault on the part of Som Nath in driving the truck rashly and negligently, maintained that the accident had taken place due to negligent driving of the truck by him. Both of them were positive in asserting that the jeep was being driven by Ram Singh and not by Banarsi Dass Sharma at the time of accident. Gurcharan Singh added that Som Nath had run away after causing the accident. In rebuttal, Karam Chand (R W. 7), who was accompanying the truck as cleaner, Kartar Singh (R.W. 9) and Som Nath (R.W. 10) maintained that the truck was driven on the left hand side (correct side) of the road and it was the jeep which was driven in a zigzag manner and had hit against the truck. So, according to them, the accident had resulted due to negligence on the part of Ram Singh. The Tribunal doubted if Gurcharan Singh, Karam Chand and Kartar Singh had witnessed the accident. It, however, accepted the presence of Ram Singh and Som Nath, who were admittedly the drivers of the two vehicles, at the time and scene of accident. The circumstances, that the left front side of the truck had hit against the left side of the jeep and it (the jeep) had turned turtle on the left side of the truck and the truck had stopped within about 3 feet, and there were no skid marks on the road, weighed with the Tribunal in doubting the version unfolded by Ram Singh, and it found on the strength of the statement of Som Nath that the accident had taken place due to negligent driving of the jeep by Ram Singh. The aforesaid approach of the Tribunal is neither sound nor convincing. Having regard to human nature, as it is, it is difficult for a person to admit his fault. Therefore, it was natural for Ram Singh and Som Nath to suppress the defaults committed by them and to throw the blame on each other for the commission of the accident. So, the rule of prudence required that their evidence should have been received with caution. The said caution demanded that the version put forth by either of them would be accepted if the same is corroborated by the circumstances of the case. Head Constable Hari Om (A.W. 4) had recorded the statement (Exhibit A. 2) of Ram Singh at, 12.30 p.m. and he reached the scene of accident at 3 p.m. on the day of accident. Gurcharan Singh (A.W. 6) was present there and he recorded his statement. There is no reason to disbelieve him. He had taken Mahabir Parshad Photographer (R.W. 8) to the scene of incident and he (Mahabir Parshad) had taken the photographs (Exhibits R.W. 8/1, R.W. 8/2 and R.W. 8/3). Head Constable Hari Om noticed both the front wheels and the left rear wheel on kutcha portion of the road and its right rear wheel was on metalled portion of the road. Photographs (Exhibits R.W. 8/2 and R.W. 8/1) show that the truck was standing in a slanting position. It can be reasonably deducted from the slanting position, in which the truck had stopped, as shown in photographs (Exhibits R.W. 8/2 and R.W. 8/1), that prior to the accident it had moved on the right hand side, i.e., wrong side of the road, and that it had taken a turn towards the left hand side before the accident. The position in which it had halted after the accident rules out the possibility that it was being driven on the left hand side of the road prior to the accident. Photographs Exhibit R.W. 8/3 in particular, and photograph Exhibit R.W. 8/2, show that it was left and front side of the truck that had hit against the jeep. The circumstance that it was the front and left side of the truck that had hit against the left side of the jeep gives a clear indication that prior to the accident the jeep as well as the truck were being driven on right hand sides (i.e. wrong sides) of the road. Had it been a fact that the truck had moved on the extreme of the left hand side of the road, its front and left side could not possibly have impact with the left side of the jeep, and in that situation, it must have been middle and front portion of the truck that could have impact with the front side of the jeep. But the photographs (Exhibits R.W. 8/2 and R.W. 8/3) do not show that it was the middle of the front side of the truck that had impact with the jeep. On the other hand, as remarked above, the said photographs show that it was the left and front portion of the truck (mainly the front side of the left front mudguard) that had hit against the jeep. Had it been a fact that the truck had moved on its left hand side of the road and the jeep had moved on its left hand side of the road, the impact must have been between the right and front side of the said vehicles. That was not so.

7. The maxim res ipsa loquitor is a rule of evidence. It means that an accident, by its nature, is more consistent with its being caused by negligence of one or more persons than by other cause. It is in essence no more than a common sense approach, not limited by technical rules, to the assessment of the effect of evidence in certain circumstances. When the evidence present on record, (especially the statements of Ram Singh and Som Nath) is judged in the light of the said maxim and indications available in the photographs (Exhibits R.W. 8/1, R.W. 8/2 and R.W. 8/3), I am left with the impression that prior to the accident Som Nath had driven the truck on wrong side of the road, and similarly Ram Singh drove the jeep on wrong side of the road and when they tried to take the said vehicles on the correct sides of the road, they had come near to each other and could not control the vehicles, as a result of which there had been collision between the left and front sides of the two vehicles. Som Nath and Ram Singh had to suppress, under the strain of human weakness, the lapse on their part in driving the aforesaid vehicles on wrong sides of the road before the accident. But that is no ground to dismiss their statement in whole, because the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in this country and truth has to be separated from falsehood. The statement of Karam Chand (R.W. 7) is of no avail, because he admitted that he was sitting in the rear of the truck and a dust storm had been raised because of truck having gone on the kutcha portion of the road prior to the accident. So. he could not be able to see the events that preceded and resulted in the accident. The presence of Kartar Singh at the time and scene of incident is doubtful. He had spoken against the fact that the jeep had struck on the right side of the truck. So, the Tribunal was right in not believing them (Kartar Singh and Karam Chand).

8. Notwithstanding the innumerable definitions of the term negligence, it is breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. No absolute standard can be fixed and no mathematically exact formula can be laid down, by which negligence or lack of it can be infallibly measured in a given case. What constitutes negligence varies under different conditions, and in determining whether negligence exists in a particular case or whether a mere act or course of conduct amounts to negligence, all the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances have to be taken into account. The test of negligence is the exercise of ordinary care which is taken by a reasonable and prudent man in the circumstances of a given case. It is expected of drivers of automobiles, moving in opposite direction to see that they drive the vehicles on correct sides of the road and at a speed which they can control so as to pull up the vehicles in the event of any mishap. In the case in hand, as discussed in the preceding para, the evidence and circumstances point out unmistakably that Som Nath and Ram Singh had driven the truck and the jeep on wrong sides of the road, respectively, prior to the accident. When they tried to bring their vehicles on the correct sides of the road, there had been collision involving the impact of the left front side of the truck with the left front side of the jeep. That means that Som Nath and Ram Singh did not exercise the care and attention, which was expected of them, in driving the vehicles prior to and at the time of accident. Had one of them pulled up the vehicle and brought it to the dead stop, the accident could have been avoided. Therefore, I find, in disagreement with the Tribunal, that the accident had taken place due to negligent driving of the truck and of the jeep by Som Nath and Ram Singh, respectively. That means that both of them were guilty of composite negligence in bringing about the accident. Where more than one person is concerned in the commission of a wrong the person, who is wronged, has his remedy against all or any one or more of them, at his choice. Every wrongdoer is liable for the whole damage and it does not matter, whether they acted, between themselves, as equals. Similar view was taken in The Palghat Coimbatore Transport Co. Ltd. v. N. Krishnaswami Naidu I.L.R. 1939 Mad. 306. Therefore, neither Som Nath or Phagu Mal nor the Assurance Company could insist upon having Ram Singh or his employer-the State of Haryana, being joined as Respondents to sue Ram Singh or his employer cannot disentitle them from claiming the full relief against the Respondents. No doubt, the plea that Som Nath and Ram Singh were guilty of composite negligence, was not raised in the application made by the claimants, but that does not matter. Both of them, on the evidence and circumstances of the case have been found to be guilty of composite negligence and according to the law, discussed above, the claimants could maintain their claim against the Respondents without joining Ram Singh or his employer as Respondents, therefore, the relief cannot be denied to the claimants simply because they did not sue Ram Singh or his employer along with the Respondents. Further, in the circumstances of the case, it cannot be denied that both the parties were alive that the material question involved was that the accident was the result of negligence. According to the Appellants, the accident was due to negligent driving by Som Nath whereas the stand taken by the Respondents was that the said accident took place due to negligent driving of the jeep by Ram Singh. So, the two conflicting stands taken up by the parties included the composite negligence of Som Nath and Ram Singh resulting in the accident. As such, no prejudice appears to have been caused to the parties by the finding being recorded on the evidence and circumstances of the case that the accident had resulted due to composite negligence of Som Nath and Ram Singh.

9. In composite negligence, wrong doers are other than the injured or the deceased person, and he (injured or the deceased person) does not contribute to the events leading to the accident which results in injuries or death. Therefore, the injured or the deceased cannot be said to be guilty of contributing negligence. So, considerations of allowance on account of contributory negligence are extraneous in the case of composite negligence for the obvious reason that no contribution of negligence can be attributed to the injured or the deceased and it is the wrong doers only who are jointly or severally liable for the whole loss. Such a view was also taken in Manjula Devi Bhuta and Anr. v. Manjusri Raha and Ors. 1968 A.C.J. 1. In the case in hand, negligent driving of the truck by Som Nath and negligent driving of the jeep by Ram Singh had brought about the accident. Banarsi Dass deceased did not contribute to the accident. The plea raised by the Assurance Company that the jeep was being driven by Banarsi Dass at the time of the accident is negatived by the positive assertion, made by Ram Singh A.W. 3 and Gurcharan Singh A.W. 6 that Ram Singh was driving the jeep at that time. Further, Phagu Ram and Som Nath Respondents admitted in their written statements in reply to para 24 of the claim petition that the jeep had been driven at the time of accident by Ram Singh. There is no evidence, much less convincing, to bear the aforesaid plea raised by the Assurance Company. Therefore, I have no hesitation in agreeing with the Tribunal that the jeep was driven by Ram Singh and not by Banarsi Dass at the time of accident. Mr. L.M. Suri, learned Counsel for the Assurance Company, contended that since the jeep was being driven by Ram Singh under the direction and control of Banarsi Dass, the negligence committed by him (Ram Singh) can be attributed to Banarsi Dass. The said contention is neither borne out by the record nor is acceptable. There is nothing in evidence or in the pleadings which could show that Banarsi Dass was in control of the jeep or that he was supervising Ram Singhs act of driving the jeep. Ram Singh was an employee of the State of Haryana and the jeep belonged to it (State of Haryana). So, he was driving the jeep in the course of his employment under the State of Haryana. As such, the act of negligent driving of the jeep by Ram Singh could fasten the liability on the State of Haryana, but the same could not, in my opinion, render Banarsi Dass liable for it. So, I, find no merit in the aforesaid contention raised by Mr. L.M. Suri, over-rule the same. It, thus, follows from the above that the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 cannot be maintained and the same is set aside. I find that the accident had taken place due to composite negligence of Som Nath and Ram Singh in driving the truck and the jeep, and the claimants are entitled to recover compensation in whole from both of them or from either of them and I decide issue No. 1 accordingly.

10. The question of determining the quantum of compensation has always been a baffling one. The elements which go to make up the value of a life to the designated beneficiaries are matters which cannot be reduced to an exact or uniform rule. So the amount of compensation depends upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Despite the difficulties that confront in arriving at a correct calculation of compensation, all speculative considerations have to be avoided and an effort to arrive at a fair and reasonable amount of compensation after giving due consideration to all the material factors has to be made. The designated beneficiaries are entitled to compensation for a pecuniary or material loss resulting from the death of a person from whom there was reasonable expectation of monetary benefits, assistance or support to them. Pecuniary loss is either an actual financial benefit of which the beneficiary has in fact been deprived of or what may reasonably have been expected by him in future. Legal liability alone is not the yardstick for granting compensation. While determining the reasonable expectation, the relationship between the deceased and the beneficiaries, the class of society to which they belong, the custom obtaining in that society and their status, are the various factors which have to be taken into consideration. The claimants and the deceased are Hindus and it cannot be gainsaid that according to the custom obtaining in the community and the class to which the deceased and the claimants belong, Banarsi Dass was expected to bear the expenses of the marriages of his daughter and sons. The rights of designated beneficiaries to claim compensation for the loss resulting from the death of a person are distinct and separate. Therefore, it seems proper to assess compensation payable to them separately though a claim could have been laid in Court for the benefit of all and assessment of compensation amount payable jointly to all of them may not be illegal.

11. On the day of accident, Banarsi Dass was getting Rs. 560/- per month as pay and Rs. 146/- per month as D A. He was then aged 46 years 9 months and 19 days, vide the statement of Thakur Singh A.W. 5. So, his monthly income was Rs. 706/-, besides that he might be getting travelling allowance, etc. Mrs. Sushila Rani claimant is his widow, Mrs. Vijay Laxmi is his daughter who was aged 21 years at. the time of accident, and Hari Har Sarup and Deepak are his sons. Hari Har Sarup was aged 18 years and Deepak was studying in 7th class at that time. Vijay Laxmi and Hari Har Sarup were then reading in B.A. part I. Having regard to the circumstance that Vijay Laxmi and Hari Har Sarup were then studying, it is reasonable to say that Banarsi Dass must have been spending Rs. 500/- per month on the food, clothing, education etc. of the claimants and he might have been spending Rs. 206/- per month on himself. It would, thus, mean that the average of the monetary benefit derived by the Appellants from Banarsi Dass was Rs. 125/- per month each. Mrs. Sushila Rani admitted that Banarsi Dass had left Rs. 550/- in the Bank and Rs. 500/- in his C.T.D. account, and that she had got Rs. 11,355/- on account of G.P. Fund balance of the deceased and Rs. 5,000/- as amount of his Insurance Policy. No allowance for the aforesaid insurance amount of Rs. 5,000/- can be allowed vide Damyanti Devi and Ors. v. Sita Devi and Ors. 1972 A.C.J. 334. Therefore, at the most allowance can be given for Rs. 12,405/- which is the total of the amounts received by the claimants from the Bank, C.T.D. and G.P. Fund. That would mean that every claimant should make allowance for Rs. 3,101/-, that is, l/4th of the aforesaid amount while claiming compensation. It was conceded by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that she had been allowed pension on account of the death of Banarsi Dass at the rate of Rs. 192/- per month till 1976, and thereafter she would be getting the pension at the rate of Rs. 96/- per month till her death. As indicated above, she can be said to have been getting financial help at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month from Banarsi Dass. Therefore, the deficit in the aforesaid financial help after 1976 would be Rs. 29/- per month (that is, Rs. 125/- minus Rs. 96/-). The amount of Rs. 3,101/-, for which allowance has to be made, if deposited in some bank or otherwise prudently invested, would yield interest at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month. Therefore, the deficit of Rs. 29/- per month which would occur in the financial help to Mrs. Sushila Rani after 1976 could be adjusted towards the aforesaid amount of Rs. 30/- per month. So, it appears that she is not entitled to any compensation.

12. Vijay Laxmi gave up her studies after the accident. She could very well expect that her father Banarsi Dass would have given her dowry and spent on her marriage. Having regard to the status to which Banarsi Dass belonged and the income which he was deriving, it cannot be said that the dowry which she would have expected from her father at that time could cost less than Rs. 15,000/- So, I assess compensation payable to her at Rs. 15,000/- Making allowance for Rs. 3,101/-, which she is deemed to have received from her father after his death, I find that she is entitled to the compensation amount of Rs. 11,899/-. To make up a round figure, I assess the compensation payable to her at Rs. 12,000/-. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 15,000/- or at least Rs. 12,000/-, if deposited in a Bank or otherwise prudently invested, would yield Rs. 150/- or at least Rs. 120/- per month which would suffice for her maintenance till her marriage.

13. Hari Har Sarup too gave up his studies after the accident and took up an employment which earned him Rs. 195/- per month. He was getting Rs. 125/- per month as financial help from the deceased. Since he has begun earning Rs. 195/- per month, I do not think that he can claim any compensation on account of loss in the financial benefit which he was receiving from his father during his life-time. However, he could expect that Banarsi Dass might have given financial help to him or to his wife at the time of his marriage and I would assess that he could have been benefited to the extent of Rs. 8000/- at the time of his marriage. Making allowance for Rs. 3,101/-, which he is deemed to have received, as remarked above, I find that he is entitled to Rs. 4,899/- as compensation. To make it a round figure, I would say that he is entitled to Rs. 5,000/- by way of compensation.

14. Deepak is still minor and is continuing his studies. I would assess Rs. 12,500/- as the financial benefit which he could have expected from Banarsi Dass at the time of his marriage. Rs. 12,500/-, if deposited in a Bank or prudently invested, can [bring Rs. 125/- per month as interest to him. He, as indicated above, was receiving financial help to the extent of Rs. 125/- per month from the deceased. Therefore, I feel that Rs. 12,500/- can be allowed to him by way of compensation. Making allowance for Rs. 3,101/-, which he is deemed to have received from his father after his death, the said amount would be reduced to Rs. 9,399/-. Making it a round figure, I would find that he is entitled to Rs. 9,400/- by way of compensation. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 12,500/- or Rs. 9,400/- can be utilised by him on his marriage when he becomes major.

15. Law, as I understand, cannot and does not undertake to heal the wounds of grief and, as such, does not take into consideration damages either as a soothing to the affections or wounded feelings or for the loss of comfort or pleasure derived from the society of the deceased by the members of his family. So, it does not aim to grant any solatium for the loss of comfort or for the loss of husband or father. Therefore, I have not been able to agree with the Tribunal that any compensation could have been allowed to the Appellants for the loss of their father or husband. So, I find that the claimants are entitled to the compensation amounts stated above.

16. Som Nath Respondent was admittedly liable to pay the compensation amounts assessed by me to Vijay Laxmi, Hari Har Sarup and Deepak Appellants because he had been guilty of composite negligence which resulted in the death of their father. The principle that master is liable for the negligent acts of his servant committed by him (servant) during the course of his employment and executed for his benefit is indisputable. Phagu Ram Respondent was the employer of Som Nath and the accident had been committed by him (Som Nath) during the course of his employment which was being executed for benefit of Phagu Ram. Therefore, Phagu Ram is also liable to pay the compensation amounts to the aforesaid three apellants. It is admitted and is also clear from Exhibit Rule 1 that the truck was insured with the Assurance Company though its liability was limited to the extent of Rs. 20,000/. and the insurance policy was subsisting. Therefore the Assurance Company is liable to pay compensation amounts to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- along with the other Respondent. The first liability of the Assurance Company is to pay Rs. 20,000/- and the liability to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 6,400/- lies on Phagu Ram and Som Nath jointly and severally. Calculating arithmetically on the basis of the ratio of the compensation amounts assessed by me as payable to the three claimants, it would mean that Vijay Laxmi is entitled to recover Rs. 9,090/- from the Assurance Company and Rs. 2,910/- from Phagu Ram and Som Nath Hari Har Sarup is entitled to recover Rs. 3,790/- from the Assurance Company and Rs. 1,210/- from Phagu Ram and Som Nath, and Deepak is entitled to recover Rs. 7,120/- from the Assurance Company and Rs. 2,280/- from Phagu Ram and Som Nath. I would, therefore, decide issue No. 2 accordingly. The findings of the Tribunal on issues No. 3 and 4, for the reasons already recorded above, are correct and the same are affirmed.

17. Consequently, I allow this appeal, set aside the award of the Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition, and grant compensation amounts stated below to Vijay Lamxi, Hari Har Sarup and Deepak, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum against the respective Respondents:-

Against Assurance Company (Rs.)

Against Phagu Ram and SomNath (Rs.)

Total (Rs.)

Vijay Laxmi

9,090/-

2,910/-

12,000/-

HariHarSarup

3,790/-

1,210/-

5,000/-

Deepak

7,120/-

2,280/-

9,400/-

The claim of Mrs. Sushila Rani is, however, declined and her claim petition is dismissed to that extent. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, especially that the Appellants have succeeded partially in the claim, the parties are left to bear their own costs throughout.