JUDGMENT K. C. Agrawal, J. - These four connected appeals have been preferred by M/s. National Insurance Company Limited against the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gorakhpur, dated May 15, 1979. The controversy involved in these appeals is about the apportionment of the compensation between the two insurance companies where two vehicles, involved in the accident, were insured with two different companies. 2. Four claim petitions were filed by different claimants in respect of an accident which took place on December 8, 1977 at about 11.30 a. m. In the accident there was a head on collision by Truck No. USF 3121 with car bearing N. USB 7674. The claimants were the occupants of the car. Their version was that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the truck. While trying to overtake, the truck went towards its right and dashed against the car. In the accident Pt. Ram Gopal Sharma, Nagar Das and the driver of the car died and two others viz., Poonam Chand, Bal Krishna Sarraf sustained serious injuries. The truck was insured with M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, whereas the car was insured with New India Insurance Company, Both the insurance companies had filed written statement. Their pleas, in defence, were limited to Section 96 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed several issues. It held that the accident occurred due to negligence of the truck driver as well as the driver of the car. It divided the liability of compensation payable by the two insurance companies in the ratio of 75% and 25%. Against this division of the compensation, M/s. National Insurance Company Limited has filed these four appeals. 4. The appellants counsel urged that there being neither any provision in any of the Acts nor any principle of law, the Tribunal committed an error in apportioning the liability of compensation in the ratio of 75 : 25. The submission is not correct. The Tribunal considered the entire evidence in detail and found that the accident occurred mainly due to the negligence of the truck driver. It is true that the driver of the car was also found responsible for the same. However, since the driver of the truck was found more responsible for the accident, he apportioned the liability of payment of compensation in the ratio aforesaid. It is true that the driver of the car was also found responsible for the same. However, since the driver of the truck was found more responsible for the accident, he apportioned the liability of payment of compensation in the ratio aforesaid. 5. It may be true that there is no provision either in the Motor Vehicles Act or in any other Act for the apportionment of liabilities amongst the two insurance companies, with which the two different vehicles insured with each one of them are involved. Under the law just compensation has to be deter-mind and awarded. In order to award compensation which is just, the court could apportion the liability amongst the two companies with which the vehicles were insured. That being so, we find no merit in all these four appeals. 6. The appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.