Judgment MOHINDER PAL, J. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal Exh. 16, dated 28-7-2006 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1203 of 1993, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10th May, 1993, the appellant, Babubhai Vithalbhai, along with other person, Firozkha Ibrahimkha were engaged as a labourer and were travelling in a truck to bring sand to Vadodara. On the way, the other truck came from the opposite side which was driven in rash and negligent manner. As a result of which, the truck in which the appellant was travelling went out of control and turned turtle. As a result of which, the present appellant got the fractured on his left hand and received injuries on head and back. The other labourer, Firozkha, also received injuries for which a separate claim petition was filed. Tribunal awarded Rs.45,500/- as a lump-sum compensation on account of the injuries received by the appellant. However, it was ordered that 70 % of this amount will be paid by the respondents i.e. owner, driver and Insurance Company of the truck in which the appellant was travelling and the remaining 30 % of the amount will be paid by the offending vehicle as a result of which, the accident has taken place. 3. Aggrieved from this order of the Motor Accident Claim Petition, the appellant, Babubhai Vithalbhai, has come in appeal which is pending for disposal. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the offending vehicle was not at all responsible for causing an accident, and as such, total liability should have been of the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the truck in which the appellant was travelling. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned Counsel representing the Insurance Company of the truck in which the appellant has been travelling has fairly stated at Bar that this was a clear-cut case of composite negligence, and accordingly, the liability of both the vehicles should have been joint and several. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission made before me. 7. The fact that the vehicle bearing registration No. GJ-6-T-7493 met with an accident on 10-5-1993 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the present appellant along with the other labourer, namely, Firozkha, received injuries including the fracture. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission made before me. 7. The fact that the vehicle bearing registration No. GJ-6-T-7493 met with an accident on 10-5-1993 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the present appellant along with the other labourer, namely, Firozkha, received injuries including the fracture. In order to prove their case, the present appellant i.e. Babubhai Vithalbhai, and his co-traveller, Firozkha, have put in appearance before the trial Court. Both of them have stated in one voice that driver of the vehicle was negligent and as a result of which, the truck turned turtle and they received injuries. None of these witnesses have stated regarding negligence on the part of the offending vehicle i.e. the vehicle on which the liability of 30% has been fastened by the Tribunal. Other vehicles have not at all hit the vehicle in which the appellant has been travelling. 8. Under these circumstances, the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal committed an error by holding that the other vehicle was liable to the extent of 30 % with a direction to the appellant to recover the remaining 30 % from the Insurance Company of that vehicle. 9. Both the Counsel have also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan, reported in 2008 (3) SCC 748 ; wherein, it has been held as under : "6. Composite negligence refers to the 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 wrong-doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a case, each wrong-doer 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. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for the Court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for the Court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. On the other hand, where a person suffers injury, partly due to negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence on the part of the injured which contributed to the accident it referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stand reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. 7. Therefore, when two vehicles are involved in an accident, and one of the drivers claims compensation from the other driver alleging negligence, and the other driver denies negligence or claims that the injured claimant himself was negligent, then it becomes necessary to consider whether the injured claimant was negligent and if so, whether he was solely or partly responsible for the accident and the extent of his responsibility, that is, his contributory negligence. Therefore, where the injured is himself partly liable, the principle of composite negligence will not apply nor can there be an automatic inference that the negligence was 50:50 as has been assumed in this case. The Tribunal ought to have examined the extent of contributory negligence of the appellant, and thereby, avoided confusion between composite negligence and contributory negligence. The High Court has failed to correct the said error." 10. In view of the evidence brought on record by the appellant along with the other person, namely, Firozkha there is no doubt that the other vehicle was not at all responsible for causing the accident. It was rash and negligent driving of respondent, Dauoodbhai Kureshi, which resulted into accident and injuries to the appellant. Otherwise also, in view of the judgment cited above in the case of T.O. Anthony (supra), it was a case of composite negligence under which the liability of both the vehicles should have been joint and several. 11. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed by holding that all the respondents jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation to the appellant. 11. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed by holding that all the respondents jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation to the appellant. Appellant will be further entitled to the same with interest which has been awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the claim petition till actual payment. Since, the Insurance Company of the vehicle which the appellant has been travelling is one of the respondents before this Court, they are directed to deposit the remaining amount with interest within a period of 2 months. If the amount is deposited within this period, the appellant will move an application, and thereafter, the amount will be disbursed to him forthwith. No cost. (HSS) Appeal allowed.