JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE order passed in this appeal will also govern the disposal of Misc. (First) Appeal No. 269/81 (The New India Assurance Company Ltd vs. Koduram and others) as both these appeals arise out of the same accident and the same claim case. ( 2. ) THESE two appeals under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the act) by the Insurance Companies named above have been directed against the award dated 15-12-1980, made by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Chhatarpur (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) in Motor vehicle Claim Case No. 6 of 1979. ( 3. ) ONE of the trucks involved in the accident that is, truck No. C. P. Q. 1898, was owned by Awadhbihari Asati, respondent No. 4, which was insured with the appellant-Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as the oriental company) and on the relevant date was driven by the driver Nathuram, respondent no. 3 who was in the employment of the truck owner Awadhbihari Asati. ( 4. ) ANOTHER truck involved in the same accident bearing No. M. P. G. 8885,was owned by Narayan Singh, respondent No. 3 (in M. A. No. 269/81) insured with the appellant-The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the new Company) was driven on the relevant date by its driver Babulal, respondent No. 2, in the employment of truck owner, Narayan Singh. The deceased Munnalal was a cleaner in the truck No. M. P. G. 8885 and Koduram, respondent No. 1 (in both the appeals) is the claimant being father of the deceased Munnalal. ( 5. ) ON 16-10-1978, both the aforesaid trucks were going from Chhatarpur to harpaipur. The truck No. 8885 was going ahead loaded with cement bags and the deceased cleaner Munnalal was sitting in the said truck. The other truck no. C. P. Q. 1898 was going behind following the truck No. 8885. The truck No. 1898 tried to overtake the truck going ahead of it and in that process the truck driver of truck No. 8885 swerved his truck to the left and struck with a tree and overturned as a result of which Munnalal sustained injuries which proved fatal. His father Koduram, respondent No. 1 made a claim of Rs. The truck No. 1898 tried to overtake the truck going ahead of it and in that process the truck driver of truck No. 8885 swerved his truck to the left and struck with a tree and overturned as a result of which Munnalal sustained injuries which proved fatal. His father Koduram, respondent No. 1 made a claim of Rs. 51,000/- against the owners, drivers and insurance Companies of both the aforesaid mentioned trucks by contending that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the drivers of both the trucks in which his son Munnalal lost his life. The Tribunal on evolution of evidence recorded the finding that the drivers of both the trucks were negligent and, therefore, made an award of Rs. 12,000/- as damages in favour of the respondent No. 1,koduram, against the owners, drivers and Insurance Companies of both the trucks, payable by them jointly and severally, with interest at 6 percent against which these two appeals by the two Insurance Companies have been directed. ( 6. ) THE contention of Smt. Nair, learned Counsel for the appellant, Oriental company, was that since the tribunal has found the contributory negligence of drivers of both the trucks responsible for the accident, the tribunal should have apportioned the award payable by each of the two Insurance Companies to the extent of 50 per cent each. As against this, Shri R. P. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 (The New India Assurance Company, in M. A. No. 148/81, contended that there can be no apportionment in the case of composite negligence as apportionment shall effect the right of the plaintiff-claimant to recover the full amount of damages from either of the parties or persons found liable for the same. Learned counsel for the parties cited various decisions in support of their respective contentions which I shall discus hereinafter. ( 7. ) HERE, it may be relevant first to examine whether the terms "composite negligence" and "contributory negligence" are synonymous terms or have different and distinct meanings in legal parlance. The expression "contributory negligence" is referable to the conduct of a person who is either injured in the accident or has lost his life. ( 7. ) HERE, it may be relevant first to examine whether the terms "composite negligence" and "contributory negligence" are synonymous terms or have different and distinct meanings in legal parlance. The expression "contributory negligence" is referable to the conduct of a person who is either injured in the accident or has lost his life. In other words, there should have been some act or omission on the part of the person injured or who lost his life in the accident and had thereby materially contributed to the commission of accident by his own conduct, coupled with some degree of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. In such a situation, it would be a case of contributory negligence in which the injured or the deceased and the driver of the vehicle both contributed to the commission of accident and, therefore, it is termed as "contributory negligence". As against this, in a case where a person is injured or has lost his life without any negligence on his part but due to the combined effect of negligence of two or more other persons, it would not be a case of "contributory negligence", but a case of "composite negligence" of those two or more other persons who contributed to the accident or damage by their own act or op fission. There is, thus, material distinction between the terms "contributory negligehce" and "composite negligence". (See Pollock on Torts, 15th Edition, Page 361 ). ( 8. ) THE Tribunal has recorded a definite finding that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the drivers of both the trucks and that the deceased had not contributed materially or otherwise to the commission of the said accident and this position has not been disputed before me by any party to this appeal. Consequently, applying the aforesaid test, it was a case of "composite negligence" and not a case of "contributory negligence". The question then arises is whether in a case of composite negligence there can be an apportionment of damages between the truck owners, drivers and Insurance Companies of the two vehicles or not? Consequently, applying the aforesaid test, it was a case of "composite negligence" and not a case of "contributory negligence". The question then arises is whether in a case of composite negligence there can be an apportionment of damages between the truck owners, drivers and Insurance Companies of the two vehicles or not? This question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Manjula devi vs. Smt. Manjusri Raha, 1967 MPLJ 972 = 1968 ACT 1 (M. P) in which it was held that in a case of contributory negligence the Courts have powers to apportion the loss between the parties as seems just and equitable, in which event, the damages are reduced to such an extent as the Court thinks just and proper having regard to the extent of responsibility shared by the injured and the driver of the vehicle. It has been further observed that where negligent acts of two or more independent persons as between them caused damages to a third, the sufferer is entitled to sue all or any one of the negligent persons and it is no concern of his, whether there is any duty of contribution or indemnity as between those persons, though in any case he could not recover in the whole more than his whole damage. On that basis, it has been held that in a case where there has been no contributory negligence on the part of the victim the question of apportionment does not arise because that will affect the claimants right to recover the full amount of damages from either of the person found responsible for the payment of damages. This view of a Division Bench of this Court was followed by the Orissa High Court in the case of Golak Chandra Das vs. Kousalya Nayak, 1978 acj 48 in which the Tribunal had found composite negligence of the drivers of the two vehicles and had apportioned the compensation awarded to the claimants between the drivers of the two vehicles. The Orissa High Court took the view that it was a case of "composite negligence" and, therefore, both the drivers were jointly and severally liable for the whole loss. In the case of Kamataka State Road Transport corpn. The Orissa High Court took the view that it was a case of "composite negligence" and, therefore, both the drivers were jointly and severally liable for the whole loss. In the case of Kamataka State Road Transport corpn. vs. Krishnan, 1981 ACJ 273, a Division Bench of Kamataka High Court following the decision of the M. P. High Court in the case of Manjula Devi (supra) also took the view that there can be no apportionment of damages in a case of "composite negligence" and the Insurance Companies of the two vehicles involved in the accident were directed to pay the compensation jointly and severally. ( 9. ) IT may, however, be pointed out that another Division Bench of the karnataka High Court in the case of Nagappaiah vs. New India Assurance Co. , 1982 acj 176, took a contrary view than the one taken by the earlier Division Bench of the same High Court in the case of Krishnan (supra) which probably escaped the notice of the Bench which decided the later case. In the later decision in the case of Nagappaiah (supra) although the Karnataka High Court took the view that in a case of "composite negligence" both the vehicles would be equally liable for causing accident yet apportioned the damages as 50 per cent each but no reasons are given for the said apportionment, nor the earlier decision of the Division Bench in the case of Krishnan (supra) was referred to. It may, however, be made clear that as section 95 (2) of the Act limits the liability of an Insurance Company and therefore mention of liability in section 110-B of the Act, the liabililty of Insurance Company is in relation, to the extent of statutory liability as laid down in section 95 (2) and not in relation to the proportion of responsibility in the case of a composite liability. ( 10. ) AGAIN in the case of Kundan Bala Vora vs. State of U. P. , 1984 ACJ 99, a division Bench of the Allahabad High Court also took the view that as there was no negligence on the part of the deceased passenger and the accident took place entirely due to the "composite negligence" of the drivers of the two vehicles and, therefore, apportionment of compensation was disallowed and both the drivers were held liable jointly and severally to pay the entire amount of compensation. Reliance was placed on the earlier decision of the same High Court in the case of Ram Adhin Singh vs. Murarilal, 1979 ACJ 198 in which it was held that 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 and that the wrong doer is liable for the whole damage and it does not matter whether they acted between themselves as equals, and therefore, it was not necessary to apportion the degree of negligence between the drivers of the two offending vehicles. Similar view has been expressed by a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in a later case of United India Fire and general Insurance Co. vs. U. E Prasad 1985 ACJ 280. The Punjab and Haryana High court also took the same view in the case of Manjit Kour vs. Gurmail Singh, 1985 ACJ 800 . ( 11. ) IN Jamuna Sinha vs. Ramchandera Rai, 1983 ACJ 90, a Division Bench of gauhati High Court, apportioned the liability equally between the two insurers in a case of collision between a car and a truck resulting in death of a passenger and injuries to some others. But, this view appears to have been taken without assigning cogent reasons for apportionment and without going into the distinction between the "composite negligence" and "contributory negligence" as pointed out above. Similar is the position in the case of Harish Chandra Hegde vs. LP. Krishnamurthy, 1984 ACJ 351 of Karnataka High Court which was not a case of composite liability but of a contributory liability and in para (5) although the view taken was that "in fact, in the case of composite negligence in causing the accident, it is normally not necessary to fix the proportion of liability among the different drivers, yet the liability of Insurance company was apportioned. " Learned counsel for the appellant, Oriental Company also relied on a single Bench decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Suraj narain vs. Sneh Lata Jain, 1985 ACJ 581 in which in the case of composite negligence of drivers of two buses involved in the accident in which a passenger had lost his life, the liability was apportioned between the drivers of the two vehicles. This view was taken placing reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of sushma Mitra vs. M. P. S. R. T. C. , 1974 MPLJ 16 = 1974 ACJ 87 . But, it may be pointed out that Sushma Mitras case (supra) was not on the point of composite negligence or about apportionment of the damages. In any case, in view of a Division Bench decision of this Court which is followed by a number of other Division Benches of other High courts as discussed above, I find myself in respectful agreement to the view taken in the said decisions that there can be no apportionment of liability between the joint-feasors in the event of composite negligence. ( 12. ) SHRI Naik, learned counsel for the appellant, the New Assurance Company in M. A. No, 269/81 submitted that it was not a case of composite liability of the drivers of both the trucks but the driver of truck No. C. P. Q. 1898 which was insured with the oriental Company alone was responsible for the accident and, therefore, the New company should not have been made jointly and severally liable to indemnify the award. On perusal of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the tribunal, I find that there is no merit in this contention. There is clear evidence of the eye-witness Gayadeen (A. W. 2) which goes to show that both the trucks were going in excessive speed and that it was due to the negligence on the part of both the drivers which had caused the accident, I do not find any error in the said finding to take a different view. ( 13. ) IN the result, both the appeals (In M. A, No. 148/81, M/s Oriental Fire and general Insurance Co. vs. Koduram and MA. No. 269/81, New India Assurance Co. vs. Koduram and 5 others) fail and are hereby dismissed with cost. Counsels fee as per schedule, if certified; appeals dismissed.