JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J.—This appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is carried against the Award made by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Cuttack awarding compensation of Rs. 16,983/- to Respondents 1 to 5. The Tribunal apportioned the compensation between the Insurer of the bus and the owner of the jeep by directing 3/4th of the amount to be borne by the Appellant (jeep-owner) and 1/4th by the Insurer of the bus on behalf of the bus owner. The owner of the jeep has filed this appeal and the Insurer of the bus has accepted the Award. A cross-objection has been filed by the claimants asking for higher compensation. 2. The short facts of the case for appreciating the points arising in the appeal are the following : On 4.12.1971, around 7.30 p.m. the deceased Niranjan Nayak was travelling from Paradeep to Kujanga (towards Cuttack) in a jeep bearing registration number ORU 2063 and the said jeep was being used to carry passengers on hire. ORC 910 being a stage-carriage vehicle of which late Banamali Dalabehera was the registered owner was coming from the opposite-direction (towards Paradeep). The claimants alleged that the bus driver was drunk and had no control over his vehicle. At the place of accident, the driver of the bus without giving any indication suddenly swerved his vehicle to its right as a result of which the bus violently dashed against the jeep. The deceased who was sitting by the side of the driver of the jeep was thrown out and was dragged by the wheels of the bus and crushed into pieces. The deceased was a healthy and active managed around 45 years. He had been employed under Government and was currently drawing a salary of Rs. 400/-. Besides, he was a pensioner to the tune of Rs. 60/- per month for prior military service. The contribution of the deceased to the members of the family was Rs. 300/-per month and the entire family depended upon the said income. The bus owner, the jeep owner, the Insurer of the jeep and the Insurer of the bus filed separate written statements. The owner of the bus and its Insurer in separate written statements denied the allegations that the bus driver was drunk or that he had been driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The bus owner, the jeep owner, the Insurer of the jeep and the Insurer of the bus filed separate written statements. The owner of the bus and its Insurer in separate written statements denied the allegations that the bus driver was drunk or that he had been driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. It was pleaded that the jeep driver had committed gross infringement of the law in taking passengers on hire although the jeep was privately owned by him and had no appropriate authority to ply on hire. The Insurer of the jeep denied its liability on the plea that there was no subsisting cover of insurance for the jeep. The jeep owner advanced allegations against the bus driver and placed all the blame for the unfortunate occurrence on him. Before the Tribunal, in support of the claim, four witnesses were examined. The jeep owner (present Appellant) examined himself. On behalf of the bus owner, the Motor Vehicles Inspector and also a passenger travelling in the bus at the time of accident were examined. On behalf of the Insurer of the jeep, the Branch Manager of the Insurance Company was examined while on behalf of the Insurer of the bus no evidence was given. On the claimants' side, the service book of the deceased was produced and marked as Ext. 1. The bus owner produced the records of the criminal case instituted in respect of the occurrence while the Insurer of the jeep produced the certificate of Insurance and the registration certificate as also the Insurance policy to substantiate its stand. The Tribunal, on an assessment of the evidence, came to hold that there was no subsisting insurance of the jeep and its Insurer had, therefore, no liability to meet under the Act. It was a case of composite negligence and in the matter of apportionment of liability, the jeep owner was responsible to the tune of 75 per cent and the bus owner to the tune of 25 per cent. He accordingly held that the said proportion should be maintained in the matter of sharing the burden of compensation. The Tribunal further held that appropriate compensation in the case would be Rs. 16,983/- and he directed the bus owner to bear 1/4th thereof and the jeep owner to bear the remaining 3/4th. He accordingly held that the said proportion should be maintained in the matter of sharing the burden of compensation. The Tribunal further held that appropriate compensation in the case would be Rs. 16,983/- and he directed the bus owner to bear 1/4th thereof and the jeep owner to bear the remaining 3/4th. In assessing the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal worked out the age of superannuation from Government service at 55 years. In the memorandum of cross-objection, the claimants have pressed for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the age of superannuation has already been raised to 58 years and the claimants should have been compensated for deprivation of income for the remaining three years as well. 3. There is no dispute that there was a collision of the bus and the jeep and as a result thereof, at the place and at the point of time indicated the deceased who was travelling in the jeep met with a fatal accident. The Appellant does not advance any argument that the Insurer of the jeep would have to bear his burden created under the award. Two contentions are mainly advanced by Mr. Ghosh for the Appellant namely-- (i) The Tribunal has gone wrong in finding the Appellant to have driven the jeep in a rash and negligent manner; and (ii) The finding that the driver of the jeep was more to blame is without any basis. 4. Both these contentions seem to be without any basis. P.W. 2, a passenger of the ill-fated jeep has said that the vehicle was moving at normal speed on the left side of the road. In cross-examination, he said: The driver of the jeep (O.P. No. 1) was driving slowly but he did not stop the vehicle. Appellant as O.P.W. 1 said : My jeep was standing on the left of the road, half on the tar portion and the other half on the earth work. O.P.W. 1 has, therefore, been not believed. It has been found that the master cylinder of the jeep was empty but according to the Expert (O.P.W. 1 for O.P. No. 2) the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of the two vehicles. There is evidence that both the jeep and the bus were moving at speed and neither had taken appropriate caution and care even at the point of crossing. There is evidence that both the jeep and the bus were moving at speed and neither had taken appropriate caution and care even at the point of crossing. The road was wide enough to allow both the vehicles to comfortably negotiate the crossing and but for carelessness amounting to negligence the collision would not have occurred. O.P.W. 2 for opposite-party No. 2, a passenger in the bus, has supported the stand of the bus owner that the jeep came at speed, swerved to the side of the bus and dashed against it. The evidence shows that the jeep has been pushed to a distance on account of the collision. On the materials on record, the Tribunal in my view was correct in its finding against the jeep owner. Similarly the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the jeep was more to blame than the driver of the bus for the incident is clearly supportable. Even the report and evidence of the Expert supports the finding. The jeep was overloaded and evidence shows, even in the front three persons besides the driver had been sitting. The vehicle was an old one and was not in good repair. Lubrication and oil position were not checked. 5. Now remains the contentions of the Insurer of the bus and the claimants. On behalf of the claimants, it has been contended that the quantum of compensation should be enhanced on the basis that the Tribunal has taken into account the age of superannuation to be 55 years whereas deceased's superannuation would actually be due at the age of 58. Therefore, three years of extra service should have been taken into account. It is also contended that the award of compensation should be against the joint tortfeasors and there was no justification for the Tribunal to apportion the compensation in the manner it has done. On behalf of the Insurer of the bus, it has been contended that rules of English Common Law in regard to negligence and damage are not applicable in India and as such on the basis of joint tortfeasors, the Tribunal was not justified in passing an order of apportionment in fixing liability. The power to apportion is as provided in Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act on the basis of the extent of negligence of the parties involved therein. It is further claimed by Mr. The power to apportion is as provided in Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act on the basis of the extent of negligence of the parties involved therein. It is further claimed by Mr. Mohanty for the Insurer of the bus that composite negligence is not a term defined or explained anywhere and should ordinarily mean that both acts of negligence operate at the same time so as to form one transaction and which gets so mixed up that it is not possible to separate the same in order to find out the whole fault in question. 6. As already stated, a cross-appeal has been filed by the claimants for higher compensation. Admittedly, the Tribunal proceeded on the footing that the deceased was to superannuate at the age of 55 from service. There is no dispute that the age of superannuation as at present is 58 and there is no justification to hold that the deceased would not have continued in service until superannuation became due. The Tribunal found that the loss to the family on account of premature death is at the rate of Rs. 185/- per month. At the said rate for the three more years of service which the deceased would have had, compensation would work out at Rs. 6,660/-. Taking all other facts into a account, I am prepared to fix the net amount at Rs. 5,000/-. It would, therefore, follow that the claimants are entitled to a further compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. It was appropriate for the Tribunal to have rounded off the figure of compensation instead of awarding the compensation of Rs. 16,983/-. I would hold that the compensation as per the order of the Tribunal should be Rs. 17,000/- net and the Rs. 5,000/- being added thereto, the net compensation to which the claimants shall be entitled would work out to Rs. 22,000/-. 7. Mr. Patnaik for the claimants relies upon a Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Manjula Devi Bhuta and Another Vs. Manjusri Saha and Others, where it has been held: It will be clearly seen that that case was one where the principle of contributory negligence was applied. That expression, although too firmly established to be disregarded, is apt to be misleading, unless properly understood. 'It applies solely to the conduct of a Plaintiff. Manjusri Saha and Others, where it has been held: It will be clearly seen that that case was one where the principle of contributory negligence was applied. That expression, although too firmly established to be disregarded, is apt to be misleading, unless properly understood. 'It applies solely to the conduct of a Plaintiff. It means that there has been an act or omission on the part of the Plaintiff which has materially contributed to the damage, the act or omission being of such a nature that it may properly be described as negligence, although negligence is not given its usual meaning'. (See Charlesworth on Negligence, 3rd. Edition, para 328). It is now well settled that in the case of contributory negligence, Courts have power to apportion the loss between the parties as seems just and equitable. Apportionment in that context means that damages are reduced to such an extent as the Court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claim shared in the responsibility for the damage. But, in a case where there has been no contributory negligence on the part of the victim, the question of apportionment does not arise. Where a person is injured without any negligence on his part but as a result of combined effect of the negligence of two other persons, it is not a case of contributory negligence in that sense. It is a case of what has been styled by Pollock as injury by composite negligence. (Torts 15th Edition, p. 361). Where a person is injured without any negligence on his part but as a result of combined effect of the negligence of two other persons, it is not a case of contributory negligence in that sense. It is a case of what has been styled by Pollock as injury by composite negligence. (Torts 15th Edition, p. 361). If due to negligence of A and B, Z has been injured, A cannot avail himself as against Z of the so called contributory negligence of B and say : 'It is true you were injured by my negligence, but it would not have happened if B had not been negligent also.' What is open to A to answer to Z is 'You were not injured by my negligence at all, but only and wholly by B's. If the conclusion arrived at is that Z was injured as a result of the negligence on the part of A and B, Z can sue both A and B. The statement of law is in these words (see Pollock on Tort, page 362): 'Where negligent acts of two or more independent persons have between them caused damage to a third, the sufferer is not driven to apply any such analysis to find out whom he can sue. He is entitled, of course, within the limits set by the general rules as to remoteness of damage to sue all or any one of the negligent persons. It is no concern of his whether there is any duty of contribution or indemnity as between those persons though in any case he cannot recover in the whole more than his whole damage'. We will follow and apply this rule to the present case.... The facts of the Madhya Pradesh case are almost similar to those in the present one. Same is the view of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Parsani Devi Vs. The State of Haryana and Others, The learned Chief Justice observed: It is, therefore, held that both the drivers being composite or joint tortfeasors, the liability of payment of the compensation by the State of Haryana as the owner of the bus extends to the whole of the amount that may be awarded, it being left open to the State of Haryana to seek such contribution from such persons as it may deem fit. The above view has been followed by a learned Single Jude of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sushila Rani Sharma and Others Vs. Som Nath and Others, In a very recent case, a Bench of Rajasthan High Court in the case of The United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Mst. Sayar Kanwar and Others, , also took the same view. In paragraph 49 of the judgment, Jain., J., spoke for the Court thus: Upon a consideration of the matter, it seems to us that where the negligence of the claimant injured or the deceased also contributes to the happening of the accident the amount of compensation that the Respondent will be required to pay shall be in proportion to the volume of his fault or negligence, but where a person is injured or dies in an accident which occurs not on account of his negligence but because the drivers of the colliding vehicles were negligent, the claimants are entitled to damages jointly and severally from the negligent Respondents. In that event, it is no concern of the Tribunal to apportion the damages between them.... As against these direct authorities, the ratio indicated in the case of The Palghat Coimbatore Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. Narayanan and Others, in the matter of adjudication of compensation in a fatal accident under the general law was also to the same effect. Varadachariar, J. as the learned Judge then was, categorically indicated speaking for the Court that subject to the rules as to remoteness of damage, the Plaintiffs are entitled to sue all or any of the negligent persons and it is no concern of their whether there is any duty of contribution or indemnity as between those persons, though in any case they cannot recover in the whole more than their whole damage. This in fact is the same principle as I have already extracted from a later decision. In view of these clear authorities, I do not think, there is force in the contention of Mr. Mohanty for the Insurer of the bus that the phrase 'composite negligence' is a misnomer and liability cannot be determined on the basis of such a dictum. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred as a result of the negligence of the drivers of the bus as also of the jeep. Mohanty for the Insurer of the bus that the phrase 'composite negligence' is a misnomer and liability cannot be determined on the basis of such a dictum. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred as a result of the negligence of the drivers of the bus as also of the jeep. If one of them had been careful, the unfortunate incident could not have occurred. The facts clearly indicate that it is a case of joint tort-feasance and both the drivers are responsible for the occurrence. It would, therefore, follow that it is a case of composite negligence and the compensation is, therefore, payable jointly and severally by the joint tortfeasors. Accordingly, there was no justification for the Tribunal to apportion the compensation fixing the liability of the jeep owner to the tune of three-fourths and the bus owner to the tune of the remainder. Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act has no application to the facts of this case and relying on that provision it was not open to the Tribunal to make any statutory apportionment. On the other hand, it would be appropriate to hold the owners of the bus and the jeep to be jointly liable for the total compensation. It has already been held that the Insurer of the jeep has no liability. Under the provisions of the Act, the liability of the owner of the bus is to be met by its Insurer. I would accordingly modify the order of the Tribunal and allowing the cross-appeal determine the compensation at Rs. 22,000/- net besides costs of Rs. 400/- which has been directed to be equally apportioned between the jeep owner and the Insurer of the bus. I make no order for costs in this Court. The compensation of Rs. 22,000/- would be recoverable from the jeep owner as also the bus owner and since the compensation is within the statutory limit, the liability of the bus owner will have to be met by his Insurer. The compensation shall carry interest as directed by the Tribunal of six per cent from the date of the claim until recovery.