JUDGMENT : 1. This order shall govern the disposal of aforesaid two appeals (Misc. Appeal No.450/2003 and Misc. Appeal No.458/2003) 2. Misc. Appeal No.450/2003 is filed by the claimants of the deceased whereas Misc. Appeal No. 458/2003 is preferred by the injured being aggrieved by a common Award dated 26th April 2008 passed in respective Claim Cases No. 84/02 and 72/02 by the Fifth Additional Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhind (M.P.). 3. The facts of the case, which are necessary for the decision are that on 21st April 2003 at around 10 o' clock in night, Bhagwan Singh with his family members was travelling in a Maruti Car bearing registration No. DNC 5667. Said Maruti Car was driven by Komal Kumar which collided with a tractor No. CIG 6537 coming in a high speed from front side. As a result, Bhagwan Singh who was travelling in car died on the spot while his son Raju @ Rajesh Singh was seriously injured. The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by Komal Singh, driver of the car against the driver of tractor involved in accident in Police Station Bhind. The crime was registered and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the criminal court. In Claim Case No. 72/2002, injured Raju @ Rajesh Singh claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 12,02,745/-. In another Claim Case No. 84/2003, the claimants of the deceased claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 9,11,070/-. The Tribunal after recording the findings that the accident was caused due to the composite negligence of drivers of both the vehicles fixed the percentage of negligence as 50% each, hence, a sum of Rs. 31,405/- in favour of the injured Rajesh in Claim Case No.72/02 was awarded. In another Claim Case No.84/02, the claimants of the deceased have been compensated by a sum of Rs. 3,32,910/-.Being aggrieved, the appellants have come to this court. 4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing in Misc. Appeal No. 450/03 on behalf of the claimants is that the learned tribunal erred in applying the principles of composite negligence on the part of the driver of the car in which the deceased alongwith other family members was travelling. It is further submitted that there is an error committed by the learned MACT in calculating the dependency on the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. It is further submitted that there is an error committed by the learned MACT in calculating the dependency on the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 1873/- as well as applying lesser multiplier. The rate of interest is also on lower side. It is further urged that the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed on the basis of principles of last salary drawn. On this basis, it is prayed that the impugned findings contained in the Award are liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. Similar is the submission put forth on the point of composite negligence in another Misc. Appeal No.458/03. It is further submitted that the learned tribunal committed an error in observing the nature of permanent disability suffered by the injured Raju. Moreover, the certificate issued by the District Medical Board after examining the injured on settled norms of disability examination is ignored. The medical expenses incurred were not properly awarded. The multiplier apply is on lower side. In view of the above, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal the award may be modified up to the amount as sought for. 6. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company in both the appeals submitted that the appellants in both the cases have not joined the owner, driver and Insurance company of another vehicle involved in accident. It is submitted that the tribunal rightly concluded that the accident was result of the joint tort-feasers and the drivers of both the vehicles were negligent and equally responsible for payment of compensation to the claimants and injured. In this manner, the learned tribunal has rightly passed the award in favour of injured and claimants of the deceased which is sought to be maintained by the learned counsel with dismissal of the appeals. 7. In the light of the submissions put forth, this court has examined the legal principles laid down by Hon. Apex Court in the decision T.O. Anthony Vs. Kavaran and others ( 2008 ACJ 1165 ). That was a case of head on collision. K.S.R.T.C. bus and a private bus were involved in the accident. The driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus filed claim petition claiming compensation. Kavaran and others ( 2008 ACJ 1165 ). That was a case of head on collision. K.S.R.T.C. bus and a private bus were involved in the accident. The driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus filed claim petition claiming compensation. The Apex court noticed the fact that in many cases, including the one at hand, the Tribunal fell in to a common error in proceeding on the assumption that composite negligence and contributory negligence are one and the same. The Apex court held that where a 3rd party, other than the driver or owner of the vehicles involved, claims damages for loss or injuries in an accident involved in a motor vehicle, 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 one of the drivers for loss on account of his death, or by the owner of one of the vehicles in respect of damages to his vehicle, it was held that the issue that arises is not about the composite negligence of all the drivers, but about the contributory negligence of the driver concerned. 8. The Apex court held that composite negligence refers to the negligence on the part of the two or more persons and that where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is stated that the person was injured on account of composite negligence of those wrong doers. In such a case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured to pay the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. The Apex court further held that in such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong doers separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong doer separately. The Apex court also examined the differences between the composite negligence and contributory negligence. The Apex court further held that in such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong doers separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong doer separately. The Apex court also examined the differences between the composite negligence and contributory negligence. The Apex court held that 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, is referred to as his contributory negligence. In the said case, the Apex court found that contributory negligence on the part of the appellant/claimant is only 25% and not 50%. The court modified the award to the extent of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant which is only 25%. 9. Following the decision of the Apex court in the case of T.O. Anthony (supra) and after analysing the factual situation similar to the present case, this court has held that where there is absolutely no concert or common design, the liability depends purely on the aspect of negligence on the part of the driver, vicarious liability on the part of the owner, and liability of the insurance company to indemnify on the basis of the contract of insurance. In such case, the liability of parties of each vehicle cannot be shared each other. The owner of a vehicle can be held vicariously liable only to the extent of the negligence caused by his employee, who is the driver of his vehicle. The insurer of a vehicle can be fastened with liability only on the basis of the contract of insurance and that too only to indemnify the insured of that vehicle. 10. In the present case, two vehicles are involved in the accident. This is a case where 3rd party claim damages for loss or injuries and compensation is payable in respect of composite negligence of the drivers of both vehicles. In this case, the Tribunal examined the extent of negligence on the part of the drivers of both vehicles, the Tribunal on evidence found that 50% negligence each can be attributed against both the drivers. Said approach cannot be said to be wrong. 11. In this case, the Tribunal examined the extent of negligence on the part of the drivers of both vehicles, the Tribunal on evidence found that 50% negligence each can be attributed against both the drivers. Said approach cannot be said to be wrong. 11. The question now remains to be answered in these appeals is the quantum of award amount payable to the injured and the claimants. 12. It is established from the evidence on record that the deceased aged 53 years was posted as Head Constable in the Office of Superintendent of Police Gwalior and was getting Rs. 7,282/- as monthly salary alongwith other facilities attached to the post. The dependency of the claimants on the earnings of the deceased will thus be calculated on his last drawn monthly salary i.e., Rs. 7,282/-. Since the deceased was aged 53 years at the time of accident, his monthly income for the purpose of assessment of compensation is determined as Rs. 8374/- by adding 15% of his salary to actual salary income. Deducting 1/3rd of the monthly income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, contribution to family (dependents) is determined as Rs.5,583/-. Having regard to the age of the deceased, applying the multiplier of 11, the loss of dependency is worked out as Rs. 61,413/-,annually Rs.7,36,956/-. In addition thereto, claimants are also entitled to Rs. Rs. 20,000/- under the head of loss of consortium, Rs. 20,000/- as love and affection, Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- as cost of transportation of the dead-body and Rs. 10,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, the claimants are entitled to receive total compensation as Rs. 7,96,956/- (Rs. Seven lac ninety six thousand nine hundred fifty six only) alongwith interest @ 8% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date on which the claim petition was filed before the tribunal till final payment of compensation amount is made to them. 13. Now, considering the case of injured Raju @ Rajesh Singh, it appears that he in the accident got several injuries on his body including fractures in shaft of ulna right and shaft of femur left. He was engaged in Hotel and loading business on Highway and looking to the nature of his business, the disability sustained by him carries some meaning. He was engaged in Hotel and loading business on Highway and looking to the nature of his business, the disability sustained by him carries some meaning. The nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant was such that he never fully got over the same and continued to be under medical treatment till the end of his life. So, compensation awarded by the tribunal appears to be on lower side. For expenses of medicine by way of compensation Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- for future treatment for bony injuries, Rs.10,000/- for nourishing and healthy food, Rs. 20,000/- for transportation and nursing and Rs. 30,000/- for future loss in business in which he was engaged was awarded. Hence, in this manner, the claimant/injured is entitled to receive total compensation amounting to Rs. 1,10,000/- alongwith 8% monthly simple interest from the date of filing of claim petition before the tribunal till date of final realisation. In the light of the principles of law discussed above, the Insurance Company/respondent No.3 is directed to satisfy 50% of the award, i.e. Rs. 3,98,478/- (Rs. Three lac ninety eight thousand four hundred seventy eight only) in Misc. Appeal No.458/03 and Rs. 55,000/- (Rs. Fifty Five Thousand Only) in Misc. Appeal No.450/03 alongwith interest @ 8% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date on which the claim petitions were filed before the tribunal till actual payment is made. 14. As regards balance 50% of the award amount with interest from the driver, owner and Insurance Company insuring the offending car, on perusal of the evidence adduced before the learned tribunal, it is gathered from the statements of Raju @ Rajesh injured, Rakesh and Mahendra Singh that Komal Singh was driving the car on the fateful day which was owned by his friend. Name of the owner and Insurance Company despite being known to them were not disclosed before the tribunal. It is proved that the accident was direct result of head on collision of car with tractor. So, contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car could not be denied in causing the accident. Therefore, a more appropriate view in the case of composite negligence is to apportion the percentage of negligence and to fix up the liability on each vehicle to the extent of negligence. So, contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car could not be denied in causing the accident. Therefore, a more appropriate view in the case of composite negligence is to apportion the percentage of negligence and to fix up the liability on each vehicle to the extent of negligence. In such cases, it is not correct to say that the sufferer of the wrong, who is the victim of the accident, has got any choice to sue any one of the owner or insurer for the total damages for which they are liable beyond the extent of negligence caused by the driver of such vehicle, when the drivers of both the vehicles are not 'joint tortfeasors' but only 'separate tortfeasors'. Since the owner of the car is not joined, who had entered into any contract of insurance with the Insurance Company which is liable to indemnify a person insured, by virtue of contract of insurance, it is directed that the claimants as well as injured shall disclose their names alongwith all necessary particulars of the driver, owner and Insurance company where offending Maruti car was insured, at the relevant point of time, as from the facts on record it is clear that at the time of accident the said vehicle was being driven by Komal Singh, who is nephew of the deceased and cousin of injured Raju @ Rajesh. Subject to furnishing aforesaid requisite informations and depositing Rs. 5,00,000/- before the learned MACT by the owner of such vehicle against solvent surety to the satisfaction of the tribunal, the Insurance company shall first pay the balance 50% of the award amount with necessary interest within a period of three months from the date of this order to the claimants and would be at liberty to recover the same from the driver and the owner of the offending car in execution proceedings. It is further directed that the learned MACT after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties shall proceed for recovery of the contributory amount recoverable from the opponents within a year from the date such amount is deposited before it. 15. The appeals are accordingly disposed of as indicated above.