Devendra Kumar Arora, J.;- 1. List revised. None appears for respondents. 2. Heard Sri U.P.S. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant and perused record. 3. Instant appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred against the impugned award dated 4.2.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.300 of 2008. 4. On 10.12.2007, the deceased Sidhinath Singh was travelling in a tempo having registration No.U.P.-32-BN-6846 coming from Charbagh to Telibagh in the city of Lucknow. At about 6:00 p.m., in the evening, when the tempo reached near Badi Lalkurti, near the Office of Ganna Sansthan, Rae Bareli Road, Lucknow, a Maruti Zen having registration No.UP-32-AK-1073 coming from reverse direction, collided with tempo. In consequence thereof, tempo overturned to right side and passengers boarded thereon, suffered injuries. The deceased Sidhinath Singh was admitted to Military Command Hospital where, he succumbed to injuries. According to claimant, the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of Maruti Zen. At the time of death, the deceased was 61 years and after retirement from service he was availing pension of Rs.11,475/- per month. Apart from this, the deceased was also earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month. The accident occurred within the premises of police station Cantt., Lucknow. 5. The claimant wife of the deceased and his son approached the Tribunal and filed claim petition for payment of compensation. The Tribunal framed issues with regard to accident in question, negligence of the driver of tempo, insurance of Maruti Car, validity of driving licence of the driver of Maruti Zen as well as the amount of compensation to the claimants. 6. Before the Tribunal, oral and documentary evidence were led on behalf of the claimants. A plea was raised on behalf of the appellant that it is a case of composite negligence and both the vehicles were responsible in causing accident. However, the Tribunal has turned down the plea taken by the appellant's counsel and held that the accident occurred because of exclusive negligence and rash driving of Maruti Zen. The Tribunal held that the Maruti Zen had overtaken another vehicle, and gone deep right side of the road. The Tribunal relied upon the statement of PW-2 Mukesh Singh who stated that at the time of accident, he was coming from Telibagh to Charbagh. Behind him, the Maruti Zen was coming. The Tribunal held that the Maruti Zen had overtaken another vehicle, and gone deep right side of the road. The Tribunal relied upon the statement of PW-2 Mukesh Singh who stated that at the time of accident, he was coming from Telibagh to Charbagh. Behind him, the Maruti Zen was coming. The Maruti Zen overtaken him and immediately after 10-15 metres when he had gone, it collided with tempo coming from Charbagh causing injuries to passengers. He stated that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of Maruti Zen by its driver. No fault was committed by the tempo driver. 7. The Tribunal further noted that F.I.R. was lodged and the investigating officer also recorded a finding that since the car driver of Maruti Zen was at fault hence, the chargesheet was filed against him. The Tribunal held that finding recorded by the investigating officer, seems to tally with the statement of Mukesh Singh who appeared before it. 8. On behalf of the owner of the Maruti Zen, the driver Girija Shanker appeared who admitted the factum of accident but stated that the tempo driver was at fault. He stated that when he overtook the other vehicle, tempo coming from other direction, collided with Maruti Car. An inference had been drawn by the Tribunal from the statement of the driver of the Maruti Zen that it was the Maruti Car driver who had overtaken the vehicle of Mukesh Singh and while making statement before the Court, he had not stated that the tempo driver was coming on wrong side i.e., towards right side at the time of accident. Accordingly, the inference had been drawn by the Tribunal that the accident occurred because of exclusive fault of the driver of the Maruti Car. 9. The Tribunal further noted from the evidence on record that the right side of the Maruti Car and the right side of the tempo were collided with each other and the tempo suffered accident. It was the car which was coming from wrong side causing into the accident. The Tribunal also perused the site plan which reveals that the car after overtaking the vehicle of Mukesh Singh went right side of the road and in consequence thereof, collided with tempo resulting into the accident in question. 10. It was the car which was coming from wrong side causing into the accident. The Tribunal also perused the site plan which reveals that the car after overtaking the vehicle of Mukesh Singh went right side of the road and in consequence thereof, collided with tempo resulting into the accident in question. 10. We have also perused the site plan which is in the original record of the Tribunal which reveals that the car was coming from Rae Bareli towards Lucknow and at the time of accident, it had gone deep right side of the road and after hitting the tempo, gone towards Lucknow. From the site plan it appears that after overtaking another vehicle, the car driver gone towards right side of the road resulting into the accident in question. 11. While assailing the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the case reported in 2006 AIR 1255 Bijoy Kumar Dugar. Vs. Bidyadhar Dutta & others, wherein their lordships of Hon'ble Supreme court held that in the event of head-on collision, the liability may be apportioned being a case of joint tort-feasors. The relevant portion from the judgment of Bijoy Kumar (supra) is reproduced as under: "The MACT, in our view, has rightly observed that had it been the knocking on one side of the car, the negligence or rashness could have been wholly fastened or attributable to the driver of the bus, but when the vehicles had a head-on collision, the drivers of both the vehicles should be held responsible to have contributed equally to the accident." 12. One other judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation through Regional manager Vs. Smt. Rajni Garg decided by a Division Bench of this Court, on 16.3.2007[F.A.F.O No. 832 of 1992]. The Division Bench held that after ascertaining the fact with regard to joint tort-feasor, if the joint tort-feasor has been brought on record, the Tribunal shall be under statutory duty to satisfy the amount which shall be paid by the driver or owner or the insurer of the vehicle involved. The Division Bench held that after ascertaining the fact with regard to joint tort-feasor, if the joint tort-feasor has been brought on record, the Tribunal shall be under statutory duty to satisfy the amount which shall be paid by the driver or owner or the insurer of the vehicle involved. It shall be open to Tribunal after specifying their specific liability to the damage contributed, to direct the owner or insurer of the vehicle to pay entire amount to the claimants and recover the excess amount so paid over and above his or its liability from the owner or driver of the another vehicle involved in such accident. 13. There appears to be no dispute from the proposition of law argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. In case an accident occurred because of negligent of two vehicles, then the liability should be apportioned. Keeping in view the fault committed by both the vehicles or in the event of contributory negligent, the compensation may be apportioned between both the parties who caused accident. 14. However, in the case in hand, the Tribunal recorded a finding that after overtaking another vehicle, it was the Maruti Car owner who had gone towards right side of the road resulting into the accident in question. The finding has been recorded by the Tribunal after well consideration of evidence available on record which makes it ample clear that the accident occurred because of fault on the part of the driver of the Maruti Car. The finding with regard to composite negligence may be recorded only in case the negligence is of both side. At least, there must be some omission or commission on the part of other vehicle to hold it responsible for negligence. In case other vehicle is not at fault causing accident, then it shall not be a case of composite negligence. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the statement of DW which was very well considered by the Tribunal. Once, the driver of the Maruti Car himself made statement before the Court that he had overtaken other vehicle, then no question remains for adjudication by the Court. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the statement of DW which was very well considered by the Tribunal. Once, the driver of the Maruti Car himself made statement before the Court that he had overtaken other vehicle, then no question remains for adjudication by the Court. It is quite natural that the vehicle which overtakes other vehicle moving on left side of the road, shall come towards right side of the road and in such a situation, the vehicle coming from left side in natural consequence, will suffer the accident. No other ground has been raised or pressed except the ground with regard to composite negligence. In view of the above, impugned award does not seem to suffer from any impropriety or illegality. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Let entire amount if any, deposited in this Court, be remitted forthwith by the Registry to the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall release the compensation in terms of award immediately within one month. No costs.