JUDGMENT I.P. Singh, J. - This is an appeal and cross objection against the order dated 10-10-77 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Vth Additional District Judge) Meerut awarding a sum of Rs. 52,200/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition onwards. 2. The claimant respondent Rajendra Swarup alleged that he was a young graduate of 21 years and had undertaken the training course for Yoga and had obtained a certificate of Yoga training. He, was, therefore, a qualified yoga teacher and had plans to go abroad. At the time of accident he was working at Baghpat, district Meerut, as private Yoga teacher imparting training to certain persons and thereby earning a monthly income of Rs. 350/-. 3. It was alleged that on 13-9-1971 at about 8.20 P.M. the petitioner boarded U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Bus No. U.S.T. 5301 for going to Baghpat, the bus was overloaded. There were 70 passengers. The driver of the bus drove it rashly and negligently and was talking to the conductor or other passengers. When the bus was passing in front of the Cinema at Loni another truck coming from the opposite direction passed grazing the side of the bus. The petitioner was sitting on a seat on the right side above the rear wheel of the Bus. Tek Chand Jain (P.W. 2) was also sitting on the same seat which was meant for accommodating three passengers but due to overcrowding four persons had occupied the seat. As a result of the truck grazing against the window, the right arm of the petitioner was crushed. He suffered multiple fractures and cuts. The truck driver did not stop the truck but sped away. The bus driver refused to take the petitioner to the hospital. Tek Chand Jain who also resides in Baghpat near the petitioner's house helped him. He stopped a Jeep and took him in that Jeep upto Shahadara from where he hired a taxi and took the petitioner to the Irwin hospital at Delhi. The petitioner was treated there. We had undergone nine operations and was treated there. He had undergone nine operations and was still undergoing treatment. 4. Both the opposite parties filed a joint written statement. They did not dispute the accident in which the petitioner was injured. The petitioner was treated there. We had undergone nine operations and was treated there. He had undergone nine operations and was still undergoing treatment. 4. Both the opposite parties filed a joint written statement. They did not dispute the accident in which the petitioner was injured. It was said that the claimant was keeping his right arm outside the window in spite of a written notice that no part of the body should be kept out of the window. It was due to his negligence that his right arm was crushed. It was also said that the accident did not take place due to rashness or negligence of the driver of the bus, but due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck. The amount of compensation claimed was assailed as excessive. 5. The claimant examined himself as P.W. 1 and Tek Chand Jain as P.W. 2 and filed a number of documents showing the nature of injuries and the medical treatment including the operations undertaken. The opposite parties did not lead any evidence so much so that even the driver of the bus did not enter the witness box. 6. After considering the evidence on the record, the Tribunal held that the claimant was not keeping his right arm outside the window of the bus at the time of accident, that there was no a contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus and that the driver of the truck was not rash and negligent and was not responsible for the accident. As regards to damages, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 52,200/- under the following four heads : (1) Rs. 25,000/- for permanent impairment of limb. (2) Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering. (3) Rs. 10,000/- as medical expenses. (4) Rs. 7,200/- as pecuniary loss caused to the claimant due to the said accident. 7. The evidence shows that the claimant was sitting on the seat above the rear wheel on the right side of the bus. The bus was overlooked and carried 70 passengers. The driver of the bus was driving at a fast speed. He was talking to conductor and other passengers. He did not stop this even when some passengers objected. 7. The evidence shows that the claimant was sitting on the seat above the rear wheel on the right side of the bus. The bus was overlooked and carried 70 passengers. The driver of the bus was driving at a fast speed. He was talking to conductor and other passengers. He did not stop this even when some passengers objected. He was not concentrating on driving when the bus reached near a cinema in Loni, the driver saw a truck coming from the opposite direction. He applied brakes all of a sudden. He could not control the bus. The front portion of the bus moved to the left patri. The rear portion remained on metalled road. The truck passed by the side of the half portion towards the right easily and grazed against the remaining half portion. The claimant was severely injured. The received a number of cats and fractures, 8. The opposite parties did not lead any evidence. There is no evidence to show that the claimant was sitting with his right arm outside. The claimant has denied this. The Tribunal rightly disbelieved the opposite parties' version and rightly held that there was no negligence on the part of claimant. 9. The accident could take place due to the negligence of either driver or both the drivers. The appellant's contention is that the accident took place due to sole negligence of the driver of the truck. The driver of the bus the best person to say as to how and under what circumstances the accident took place. An adverse inference can be raised against the appellant's version on account of the non-production of the most material witness. 10. Apart from an adverse inference against the appellant's version the evidence adduced by the claimants shows that the driver of the bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner. He was not concentrating on driving and was talking to conductor and passengers, we could not control the bus on seeing the truck coming. When he applied brakes, half portion of the bus moved to the patri and the remaining half remained on the road. The evidence does not show that there was any obstruction on the left patri of the road. If he had been driving the bus at a reasonable speed, he could easily take the entire bus on the patri. When he applied brakes, half portion of the bus moved to the patri and the remaining half remained on the road. The evidence does not show that there was any obstruction on the left patri of the road. If he had been driving the bus at a reasonable speed, he could easily take the entire bus on the patri. He stopped the bus in a slanting position. The truck could easily cross half portion of the bus but grazed against the remaining half port 'on. 11. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that when the driver of the bus had succeeded in bringing the bus to a dead stop after applying brakes, he had done all that he could do and, as such there was no negligence on his part. It was urged that when the bus had come to a dead stop it was for the driver of the truck to pass the bus safely without dashing against it. It was, therefore, argued that although the appellant had not led any evidence, yet from the evidence led by the claimant himself it is apparent that the bus driver was not negligent and the accident took place due to the truck driver. 12. The learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No. 1 argued that the evidence on record shows that the bus driver had tried to take the bus off the road and had driven it to the Patri on his left side. It was submitted that had he driven on and had he not applied the brake, then most probably the rear portion of the bus would have also left the road or the truck to pass by. The argument is that the bus driver by his action in turning the bus over to the patri gave an impression to the truck driver that the bus was being taken down the road to the patri with the result that the truck driver drove on hoping for clearance of the entire road. It appears that the bus somehow got out of control of the bus driver and be suddenly applied brakes to stop the bus without earning to see as to whether it had completely come down on the patri. The bus had come to a stop in a slanting manner with its rear portion still on the road. It appears that the bus somehow got out of control of the bus driver and be suddenly applied brakes to stop the bus without earning to see as to whether it had completely come down on the patri. The bus had come to a stop in a slanting manner with its rear portion still on the road. The argument is that this situation led to the truck dashing against the bus resulting in the accident and the consequent injuries to the claimant. We find that the above situation does emerge from the evidence adduced by the claimant. There is enough material for the application of doctrine of `res ipsa loquitur' (the event speaks for itself). 13. Thus the rashness and negligence of driver of the bus (respondent No. 2) is proved on triple counts (i) The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur ; (ii) Adverse inference drawn against the bus driver (respondent No. 2) for not entering the witness box to explain the circumstances in which the accident occurred ; and (iii) The direct evidence of he claimant proving the rashness and negligence on the part of the bus driver (respondent No. 2). The finding to the above effect given by the learned Tribunal is, therefore, confirmed. 14. During arguments the learned counsel for the appellant also tried to stress that both the driver of the bus as well as of truck were negligent and it is a case of composite negligence. According to him the liability to pay compensation should be apportioned between the two drivers. In this regard we have already recorded a finding that the accident took place on account of the rashness of the driver of the bus and no rashness or negligence on the part of the truck driver could be established. Under the circumstances this is not a case of composite negligence. 15. Even if we accept the contention of learned counsel for appellant that the accident was caused due to composite negligence of the two drivers it could be a case of composite negligence. Both the drivers would be joint tort-feasors. The liability of joint tort-feasors is joint and several. We are fortified in this view by the decision in Manjula Devi Bhuta and another v. Manjusri Raha and others, 1968 A C J. 1 (Madhya Pradesh). Both the drivers would be joint tort-feasors. The liability of joint tort-feasors is joint and several. We are fortified in this view by the decision in Manjula Devi Bhuta and another v. Manjusri Raha and others, 1968 A C J. 1 (Madhya Pradesh). It was held in para 48 page 19 : "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." It was further held in para 48 page 20 : "Where a person is injured without any negligence on his part but as a result of the 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. 261)........... "The Statement of law is in these words (sec. Pollock on Tort 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 or 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." 16. We may also refer to Devki Tewari v. Raghunath Sahai Chatiath, 1978 A.C.J. 169, a decision of a Division Bench of this Court. This was followed in Kundan Bala & Anr. v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1982 Allahabad 409. The case of Ram Adhin Singh Mnrari Lai Agarwal, 1979 A.C.J. 198 has been explained in Kundan Bala & another v. State (supra). This was followed in Kundan Bala & Anr. v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1982 Allahabad 409. The case of Ram Adhin Singh Mnrari Lai Agarwal, 1979 A.C.J. 198 has been explained in Kundan Bala & another v. State (supra). It was held that the rule of apportionment of liability applies in a case of contributory negligence i.e. where the injured himself is also guilty of negligence. In a case of composite negligence there is joint and several liability for the whole loss. 17. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned the appellants' contention is that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is not justified. According to him, the entire claim ought to have been dismissed. However, in view of the finding recorded by us, his argument remains that the amount awarded is excessive, On the other hand, the claimant respondent in bis cross-objection asserts that his total claim for Rs. 1,00,000/- should be allowed. The claimant was a young man of 21 years of age. He was a graduate and was a trained Yoga teacher having secured necessary Yoga training certificate. He had plans to go abroad. At the time of accident, he was earning about Rs. 300/- per month. The Tribunal has observed that since in his statement the claimant stated that at the time of accident his income was round about Rs. 350/- per month so it could safely be taken as Rs. 300/- per month. Nothing has been shown by the learned counsel for the appellant to rebut the finding of the Tribunal that there has been a permanent impairment of the right limb of the respondent No. 1. The Tribunal while recording the statement of the claimant had occasion to see the injured right arm of the claimant and had made a note that it had become substantially smaller than the left arm and there ate numerous long sears on the same. The claimant stated that after the accident he is unable to do any work with the right arm. He cannot write with the right hand. In this way we confirm the Tribunal's finding that the right arm of respondent No. 1 has been completely impaired and there is a permanent disability. The claimant will, therefore, have to put up with the permanent disability throughout his life. Certainly he will have to face hardship in day-to day life and work. In this way we confirm the Tribunal's finding that the right arm of respondent No. 1 has been completely impaired and there is a permanent disability. The claimant will, therefore, have to put up with the permanent disability throughout his life. Certainly he will have to face hardship in day-to day life and work. The Tribunal has assessed the compensation at Rs. 25000/-. This would certainly include the loss of earnings which he would suffer throughout his life. We, therefore, do not think that any interference is called for in the assessment of this amount either way. 18. The compensation towards medical expenses as well as pain and suffering at Rs. 10,000/- on each count are also reasonable. The loss of earnings for the period he was undergoing treatment in the hospital, i.e. 2 years has been rightly allowed by the Tribunal at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month amounting to Rs. 7200/-. The more fact that he is still undergoing treatment and check-ups would be of on consequence as subsequent loss of earnings has been compensated in the earlier amount of Rs. 25,000/-. 19. We do not regard the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on each court to be unreasonable, i.e., deficient or excessive. 20. Both the appeal and the cross objection, therefore, fail and are hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.