JUDGMENT : N.K. Agarwal, J. M.A. Nos. 1464 and 1465 of 2005 preferred by the appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against the awards dated 30.9.2005 passed by Eleventh Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Raipur in Claim Case Nos. 65 and 67 of 2004 respectively are being disposed of by this common order as both the appeals arise out of the same accident. Facts of the case in brief are that on 22.4.2003 the deceased persons, namely. Dhanesh and Romesh along with the members of their family, were returning from Bagbahara to Raipur on a jeep bearing registration No. CG 18-ZD 0272. At about 3.30 in the night, the driver of the jeep/respondent No. 1, driving the jeep in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against a truck bearing registration No. CG 04-ZC 2934 which was parked on the road against traffic rules without using indicators. Dhanesh and Romesh died on the spot due to the injuries sustained in the said accident. Claimants being legal heirs of the deceased filed two separate claim petitions u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (briefly, 'the Act') for claiming compensation for the death of the deceased persons. 2. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the submissions made, evidence led and material placed awarded Rs. 2,63,128 for the death of Romesh and Rs. 15,24,256 for the death of Dhanesh along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, exonerating the driver, owner and insurer of the truck from the liability to pay compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the driver of the offending jeep was not having valid driving licence. Further referring to para 12 of the statement of eyewitness AW1 Kanti Bai and para 7 of the statement of NAW 1 Goverdhan/truck driver, he submits that it is a clear case of composite negligence, rather it is a case of total negligence of the truck driver as 3/4th part of the truck was on the road and the same was parked without there being any indicator. 4. 4. So far as defence of the appellant insurance company regarding invalidity of licence is concerned, the appellant insurance company has not filed the copy of the policy and thereby failed to prove the breach of any terms of the policy u/s 149 of the Act, the insurance company is required to prove that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy. Therefore, there is no force in the above submission. 5. However, we find force in the plea of composite negligence raised by Mr. Agarwal. AW 1, Kanti Bai, who is eyewitness, has stated that the truck was standing on the road without parking light and without any indicator. In para 5, she has stated that 3/4th part of the truck was on the road and 1/4th part was out of road. She has further stated that jeep driver and the truck driver both were responsible for the accident. NAW 1, Goverdhan, the driver of the truck, has stated in para 7 of his statement that he has not mentioned in his written statement that he burnt bushes or kept stones around the truck to indicate that truck is parked. He has further stated that all these things he is stating for the first time as his counsel instructed him that this statement will absolve him from the liability to pay compensation. 6. Rule 15 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, deals with parking of the vehicle. Rule 15 reads thus : 15. Parking of the vehicle.-(1) Every driver of a motor vehicle parking on any road shall park in such a way that it does not cause or is not likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other road users and if the manner of parking is indicated by any sign board or markings on the roadside, he shall park the vehicle in such a manner. (2) A driver of a motor vehicle shall not park his vehicle : (i) at or near a road crossing, a bend, top of a hill or a humpbacked bridge; (ii) on a footpath; (iii) near a traffic light or pedestrian crossing; (iv) in a main road or one carrying fast traffic; (v) opposite another parked vehicle or as obstruction to other vehicle; (vi) alongside another parked vehicle: (vii) on roads or at places or roads where there is a continuous white line with or without a broken line; (viii) near a bus stop, school or hospital entrance or blocking a traffic sign or entrance to a premises or a fire hydrant; (ix) on the wrong side of the road; (x) where parking is prohibited; (xi) away from the edge of the footpath. 7. As per rule 15 (1), every driver of a motor vehicle parking on any road shall park in such a way that it does not cause or is not likely to cause danger whereas in the instant case, 3/4th part of the truck was on the road causing danger to other road users, particularly when the truck was parked without using indicators, which is in contravention of rule 15 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989. 8. In view of above evidence and the provisions of rule 15 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, it cannot be said that the truck driver was not negligent in parking the vehicle and it can safely be held that due to the wrong parking of the truck without there being any indicator and/or parking light, the driver of the truck also equally contributed to the cause of accident. 9. In an accident involving two or more vehicles, where a third party (other than the drivers and/or owners of the vehicles involved) claims damages for loss or injuries, it is said that compensation is payable in respect of the composite negligence of the drivers of those vehicles. 9. In an accident involving two or more vehicles, where a third party (other than the drivers and/or owners of the vehicles involved) claims damages for loss or injuries, it is said that compensation is payable in respect of the composite negligence of the drivers of those vehicles. But in respect of such an accident, if the claim is by one of the drivers himself for personal injuries, or by the legal heirs of the drivers for loss on account of his death, or the owner of one of the vehicles in respect of damages to his vehicles, then the issue that arises is not about the composite negligence of all the drivers but about the contributory negligence of the driver concerned. 'Composite negligence' refers to negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is crystal clear that the instant case is a case of composite negligence of drivers of both the vehicles and the case in hand is not a case of contributory negligence and, therefore, the driver, owner and insurer of both the vehicles are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. 10. For the foregoing, the appeals are allowed in part. The impugned award dated 30.9.2005 passed in Claim Case Nos. 65 and 67 of 2004 are modified to the extent that the appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. along with the driver and owner of the jeep are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation with the driver, owner and insurer of the truck, i.e., respondent Nos. 3 to 5. In order to avoid any further dispute, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we clarify it that 50 per cent of the amount of award shall be paid by the appellant insurance company and remaining 50 per cent of amount of the award shall be payable by the respondent insurance company of the truck. No order as to costs.