ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 25.8.2004, passed by Additional MACT, Kannod, in Claim Case No. 192/02, whereby a sum of Rs. 77,543/- has been awarded to the claimant as compensation on account of injuries sustained by him, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that appellant filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal alleging that appellant was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No. M.P. 09 G.B. 9100, as passenger. The said bus was being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. It was alleged that the bus was driven rashly and negligently. It was further alleged that another bus bearing registration No. M.P. 37 F 0108 was coming from other side, which was driven by respondent No.4, owned by respondent No.5 and insured with respondent No.6. It was alleged that because of rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles accident took place in which appellant sustained fracture in spine and also kidney of appellant was damaged. Appellant was hospitalized for a period of 35 days. Permanent disability was assessed @ 20%. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 77,543/-, break-up of which is as under: Rs.52,543/- Towards medical expenses. Rs. 25,000/- Towards partial permanent disability 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that medical evidence was adduced to show that spleen of the appellant was removed. In the statement of doctor it has also came that because of removal of the spleen the resistance power of the whole body reduces. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the ~mount awarded by the learned Tribunal is inadequate, which deserves to be enhanced. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that in the doctor's statement it has came that now the appellant is hail and hearty and no permanent disability was found to the appellant. It is submitted that in the cross-objections filed by respondent No. 3 the findings of the learned Tribunal regarding the imposition of liability of respondents No. 1 to 3 in toto is challenged. Learned counsel submits that since it was head on collission and the criminal case was registered against the driver of both the vehicles, therefore, there ought to have been apportionment of the compensation. Learned counsel submits that since it was head on collission and the criminal case was registered against the driver of both the vehicles, therefore, there ought to have been apportionment of the compensation. It is also submitted that from the spot map Exhibit P-3 it is evident that the vehicle which was insured with respondent No.3 is going in its right direction. It is also submitted that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. Learned counsel further submits that since appellant was passenger, therefore, at the most, it could have been a case of composite negligence. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submits that after due appreciation of evidence learned Tribunal found that it was respondent No.1 is whose bus the appellant was travelling, was being driven rashly and negligently, therefore, no interference is necessary. 6. From perusal of the record it is evident that neither respondent No. 1 nor respondent No.4, who were drivers of both the offending vehicles appeared in witness box to explain that in what circumstances accident occurred. Since appellant was passenger and according to claim petition itself the driver of both the vehicles were negligent, therefore, there was no justification on the part of the learned Court below in holding respondents No. 1 to 3 liable for payment of compensation. In the matter of Sushila Bhadoriya v. M.P State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2005 (1) JLJ 15 = 2005 ACJ 831 wherein Full Bench of this Court has held that there cannot be apportionment of the liability of joint tortfeasors. In case both the joint tortfeasors are impleaded as party and if there is sufficient material on record, then the question of apportionment can be considered by the Claims Tribunal. However, on general principles of law, there is no necessity to apportion the inter se liability of joint tortfeasors. 7. In view of the aforesaid position of law there was no justification on the part of the learned Tribunal in holding respondents No.1 to 3 liable for payment of compensation. So far as the amount of award is concerned it appears that on account of expenses incurred on attenders, special diet, pain and sufferings, loss on income when the appellant was under treatment, transportation expenses, no amount has been awarded. Similarly, on account of medical expenses and permanent disability the amount awarded is on lower side. So far as the amount of award is concerned it appears that on account of expenses incurred on attenders, special diet, pain and sufferings, loss on income when the appellant was under treatment, transportation expenses, no amount has been awarded. Similarly, on account of medical expenses and permanent disability the amount awarded is on lower side. In the facts and circumstances of the case in my opinion a case of enhancement is made out. Appellant is entitle for the following amount : Rs. 55,000/- Towards medical expenses. Rs. 5,000/- Towards special diet. Rs. 5,000/- Towards pain and sufferings. Rs. 5,000/- Towards transportation expenses. Rs. 5,000/- Towards expenses incurred on attenders. Rs. 5,000/- Towards loss of income. Rs. 25,000/- Towards permanent disability. Rs. 1,05,000/- Total 8. Thus, the appellant is entitle for a total sum of Rs. 1,05,000/-, instead of Rs. 77,543/-. The enhanced amount of Rs. 27,457/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application. 9. In view of this appeal filed by the appellant and cross-objections filed by respondent No.3 are allowed in part, the amount of compensation is enhanced as indicated above. So far as the liability is concerned the findings of the learned Tribunal are modified to the extent that respondents shall be liable for payment of compensation jointly and severally.