Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Instant appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ajmer (Tribunal) vide award dated 110.2000 in MACT Case No. 418/1998 (122/1987) 2. Claimants are parents and widow of deceased Man Singh aged 30 years, who was engaged in work of “Jajmani”, and used to earn monthly Rs. 800/-, as alleged in claim petition. On 27.04.1987 while deceased was going in a truck alongwith his goods for its safety, when reached near village Jharwasa, was struck by offending Truck No. DIL 2772 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver (Respondent No. 5) coming from opposite side with high speed, thereby both the trucks collided each other causing into the accident wherein he died. 3. After taking into consideration evidence led by either parties on record, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the deceased sustained injuries from the offending truck and died in the accident but considered to be a case of composite negligence of both the colliding trucks as such made apportionment of negligence in the ratio of 50:50. So far as pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses are concerned, the Tribunal determined Rs. 660/-as monthly earning of deceased, to which 1/3rd deduction was made towards his personal expenses, and after applying multiplier of 13, assessed loss of income to the tune of Rs. 77,330/-(495x12x13) and Rs. 15,000/-as consortium to wife, Rs. 15,000/-towards love and affection to parents and Rs. 10,000/-as loss of expectations of life and Rs. 5,000/-towards funeral expenses. Since, finding of composite negligence has been recorded against each of drivers of both the colliding trucks (Non-claimant No. 1 and 5), and owner and insurer of offending Truck No DIL 2772 were not made party to claim petition, whose driver (Non-claimant No. 5) despite issuance of notices was not served, further deduction of 50% was also made and thereby compensation determined, was reduced to Rs. 61,110/-and impugned award whereof was passed only against Non-claimant No. 1 and 4 with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition 13.07.1987 to 110.1987 and from 21.04.1999 till its actual payment. 4. Claimants have assailed findings recorded of making 50% deduction of determined compensation as against composite negligence of colliding truck drivers, and quantum of compensation. 4. Claimants have assailed findings recorded of making 50% deduction of determined compensation as against composite negligence of colliding truck drivers, and quantum of compensation. Shri Sandip Mathur, Counsel for claimants contends that in case of contributory or composite negligence of both the offending motor vehicles, it is always open for legal heirs of deceased to claim against both of tort feasors or otherwise as liability is joint and several, therefore, even if driver of other offending vehicle could not be served, the Tribunal committed error in deducting half of determined amount of compensation. In support of submission, Counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Sampat Kunwar Bai vs. Gurmeet Singh, 1998 ACJ 342. 5. Counsel further urged that looking to age of deceased which has been considered by Tribunal as 30 years, as per 2nd Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”), 18 is proper multiplier and without any justification, the Tribunal awarded and determined compensation with the multiplier of 13, which requires interference by this Court. 6. Per contra, Counsel for both the respondents urged that the Tribunal after a comprehensive appreciation of evidence on record, recorded a finding of fact holding composite negligence of both the offending trucks, because claimants failed to place on record complete charge sheet, site plan, which alone would show that it was a case of either contributory or composite negligence and the deceased was traveling indisputably in goods vehicle which was not permissible and it was a clear breach of insurance policy as such he was not even entitled for compensation in facts situation of the case, and that apart, claimants failed to show as to whether deceased was sitting in goods vehicle for safety of his goods or was mere passenger which is not permissible as it violates terms of insurance policy, therefore, no error has been committed, and in such circumstances, compensation awarded is just and reasonable, requiring no interference by this Court. 7. I have pondered over contentions of the parties and with their assistance, perused material on record. 8. 7. I have pondered over contentions of the parties and with their assistance, perused material on record. 8. As regards objection raised by Counsel for respondents, suffice is to say that no such objection was ever raised either in reply to claim petition or argued before the Tribunal as to whether it was a case of breach of policy and that apart, it was nowhere asserted nor it was a case of respondents that no premium was charged for carrying passengers in goods vehicle. In the absence of material facts pleaded on record, in my opinion, objection raised for the first time before this Court deserves to be rejected. 9. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration site plan, and oral evidence of either side, recorded a finding that accident has taken place that too with offending vehicles, having composite negligence of their drivers. The deceased, himself , was travelling in Truck No. RNC 3937 being driven rashly and negligently by Teja Singh, who too was impleaded as Respondent No. 1. Both the offending Trucks (1) No. RNC 3937 carrying the deceased and (2) DIL 2772 coming from opposite direction collided each other and due to collision, the deceased died in the accident on the spot. 10. There is no material on record, which at all connects contributory negligence of the deceased in the accident in question. On the other hand, the evidence led by either side and a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal that drivers of both the offending vehicles collided each other and they are responsible for their negligence being rashly driven their vehicles and it was a clear case of rash and negligent driving of both colliding vehicles. 11. In a case of contributory negligence, its term squarely and solely applies to conduct of claimant alone. If the claimant is guilty of an act or omission materially contributing to the accident and resultant injury and damages, then only matter comes within the concept of contributory negligence, where Courts are enjoined to apportion the loss between the parties as the facts situation may justify. That apart, where a person is injured without his negligence but as a result of others’ negligence or combined negligence of two others it is not a case of contributory negligence. 12. That apart, where a person is injured without his negligence but as a result of others’ negligence or combined negligence of two others it is not a case of contributory negligence. 12. It is trite that where negligent act of two or more independent persons between them have caused damage to a third, sufferer is not driven to apply any such analysis to find out when he can sue. If the accident results from negligence on the part of two or more persons, in legal parlance, it is case of composite negligence. In common parlance, when death or injury to a person results from collision of two vehicles due to negligence of both the drivers, it is “composite negligence”. In case of composite negligence, claimant can proceed against any of the joint tort feasors or against all of them as they are joint and severally liable. 13. Thus, there has been a clear distinction between “contributory” and “composite” negligence. In case of contributory negligence, there has been an act or omission on the part of plaintiff/claimant, who has materially contributed to the accident and thereby liability has to be apportioned. Conversely, in case of composite negligence, it may not be necessary for the Tribunal to apportion the liability between the wrongdoers. 14. In Sampat Kunwar vs. Gurmeet Singh (Supra), this Court observed as under:-“The principle of composite negligence is where more than one person are responsible in commission of the wrong, the person wronged has a choice of proceeding against all or anyone or more than one of wrongdoers. Every wrong doer is liable for the whole damage if it is otherwise made out and it does not lie in the mouth of one wrongdoer to say though I am also responsible, yet, the other man was also equally responsible for the wrong and on this basis he cannot avoid the liability to the person wrong.” “It can, therefore, be said that in case a person is injured without any negligence on his part and he, in no way contributed to the negligence, no case of contributory negligence, no question of apportionment of compensation is made out. In case an accident occurs in which a person dies and the accident is the result of the composite negligence of both the parties it is open for legal representative of the deceased to claim compensation from the joint tort feasors who are liable jointly or severally.” 15. Thus, viewed, If there is collision between offending vehicles due to its negligence resulting either in injury or death to passengers therein or in a case of composite negligence of offending vehicles and the deceased sitting as passenger in one of offending vehicles, contributory negligence cannot be attributed to him and that apart, merely because claimants failed to implead driver and owner alongwith insurer of other colliding vehicle, as party to the claim application will not defeat their right in claiming compensation. In case of composite negligence, it was choice of claimants to claim compensation from anyone of wrongdoers or tort feasors. Resultantly, the claimant can choose to file claim petition against any one of them and recover damages from either of them. 16. In view of what has been considered, based on material on record, in my opinion, deduction allegedly for contributory/composite negligence and the finding recorded by Tribunal restricting liability and apportionment of determined compensation to 50% qua claimants and so also for payment of amount by non-claimants, are set aside. 17. As regards quantum of compensation and for its enhancement, in instant case, there is no dispute about 30 years’ age of the deceased. As regards assessment of monthly income of the deceased made by Tribunal towards financial dependency as well as compensation towards loss of non-pecuniary losses, I do not find any justification to interfere therewith. However, keeping in view 30 years age of deceased, as per 2nd schedule of the Act, 18 is a proper multiplier, which ought to have been adopted, which the Tribunal failed to do so and the claimants are, therefore, entitled to full compensation to tune of Rs. 1,51,920/-(1,06,920 (495x12x18) (+) 45,000/-awarded by Tribunal towards non-pecuniary losses. 18. Last contention of appellants that the Tribunal committed error in not awarding interest for intervening period in question and while recording such a finding, there was no material to show that claimants were at fault. 1,51,920/-(1,06,920 (495x12x18) (+) 45,000/-awarded by Tribunal towards non-pecuniary losses. 18. Last contention of appellants that the Tribunal committed error in not awarding interest for intervening period in question and while recording such a finding, there was no material to show that claimants were at fault. From material on record, I find that claimants, himself , have delayed the matter by not adducing evidence on record within time granted by Tribunal, as such denial of interest for intervening period in question, is just and proper, warranting no interference by this Court. 19. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation for Rs. 90,810/-Rs. 1,51,920/-minus Rs. 61,110/-awarded by Tribunal, which shall also carry interest @ 6% per annum, for the period as stated in the impugned award till its actual payment. Compensation awarded with interest shall be deposited by the respondent Insurance Company through A/c payee bank draft/pay order before the Tribunal within one month. 20. The Tribunal is further directed to deposit the amount of compensation in FDR with Nationalised Bank for a term of three years in joint name of claimants who will be entitled to receive monthly interest on FDR supra as well as full amount of FDR on its maturity. 21. It is made clear that no premature encashment shall be permitted in respect of fixed deposits, however, on an application being made to the Tribunal and it being satisfied about urgency of any need and absence of financial resources to meet any urgent financial need may permit loan or advance or premature encashment by a reasoned order. 22. To the above extent, impugned award stands modified and finding of Tribunal making deduction for composite negligence thereby restricting liability and apportionment of determined compensation to 50% qua claimants is set aside. No order as to costs.