Judgment : 1. Claimant is the appellant. He has filed the above appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal for the loss and injuries suffered by him in a motor accident. 2. His claim was for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The tribunal awarded him a sum of Rs.23,300/- with interest fixed, after coming to a finding that he too had contributed to the extent of 60% for the occurrence with the driver of the other vehicle as against whom he claimed compensation. Award so passed by the tribunal is challenged on the ground that the compensation awarded is inadequate. 3. Accident took place when appellant was riding on a motorcycle through Aluva-Munnar public road from east to west, at about 12.30 p.m on 24.9.2004. His bike collided with a private bus driven by first respondent and owned by second respondent coming from the opposite direction. Third respondent was the insurer of that bus. Crime registered on the statement of claimant proceeded against the driver of the bus as accused, but, later, after investigation, the case was referred treating it as an accident. Claimant filed a protest complaint against the driver of the bus, and, on cognizance of offences taken thereof by magistrate that driver appeared and pleaded guilty. Claimant relying on that circumstance imputed negligence on the driver of the bus for the occurrence. Tribunal looking into the materials placed, particularly, the scene of crime stated in the mahazar prepared by police and also the final report, came to the conclusion that claimant had contributed for the occurrence to the extent of 60% and driver of the bus to the extent of 40%. With reference to the loss and injuries suffered by claimant a sum of Rs.50,119/- was assessed, but having regard to the percentage of contributory negligence found against him for the occurrence, 40% of that sum i.e.23,300/- alone was found payable and that was awarded as compensation directing the insurer (third respondent) to pay such sum with interest fixed. 4. I have heard the counsel for the claimant and also the third respondent insurer. The third respondent insurer has specifically contended that the accident arose solely due to the fault of claimant, rider of the bike. 4. I have heard the counsel for the claimant and also the third respondent insurer. The third respondent insurer has specifically contended that the accident arose solely due to the fault of claimant, rider of the bike. Scene of crime disclosed that the occurrence took place at about 75cm away from the central portion of the road towards its north indicating that the bike ridden by the claimant was on its wrong side. Insurer contended that while the claimant riding the bike overtook a lorry moving in the same direction, rashly and negligently, his vehicle collided against the bus coming from the opposite direction. Negligence imputed against him was countered by claimant relying upon the admission of guilt made before magistrate by driver of the bus who was proceeded as accused in his protest complaint. The tribunal appreciating the facts and materials concluded that claimant contributed to the extent of 60% and driver of the bus for 40% for the occurrence. So, larger question that emerges for consideration in this appeal is whether the tribunal was justified in awarding compensation to claimant when his contributory negligence for the accident was shown to be 60%. 5. Two vehicles are involved in the occurrence. Where drivers of both such vehicles conjointly caused the accident by their negligence, then, it is a case of composite negligence. In such a case where one of them seeks compensation against the driver, owner and insurer of the other vehicle,naturally, to what extent he contributed for the occurrence has to be determined by tribunal. Where both drivers are culpable and at fault, percentage of contributory negligence of each driver has to be determined. If both have contributed for the occurrence equally, there is no question of awarding compensation to one from the other since as a tort feasor he would be liable equally to the other joint tort feasor. When that be so, in the present case where tribunal found that the claimant contributed for the occurrence to the extent of 60% and the bus driver only to the extent of 40%, claimant could not be awarded any compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of the bus. In a claim for compensation arising from a motor accident negligence of driver of the vehicle involved is the sine qua non for grant of compensation. In a claim for compensation arising from a motor accident negligence of driver of the vehicle involved is the sine qua non for grant of compensation. Where driver of the vehicle has caused the occurrence by his negligence vicarious liability is fastened on the owner/employer to compensate the loss and injuries suffered by any third party. Where a policy has been issued for the vehicle to the owner indemnifying him from the liability arising from any accident by use of the vehicle, then the insurer has to pay the compensation. Where composite negligence of drivers of two vehicles has resulted in the accident and one of the drivers, a joint tort feasor, claims compensation against the driver and owner of other vehicle, if the negligence of claimant was equal or more than that of the driver of the other vehicle he cannot claim compensation from him and the owner of that vehicle. If claim of such joint tort feasor is allowed, then, it is a case where he is rewarded for his own wrong doing, against the another tort feasor, but, whose wrong doing, is equal or less than his culpability. Where claimant, driver or rider of one of the vehicles, too was culpable for the occurrence equally or more than that of the driver of the other vehicle involved, it has to be held that it is a case where principle of volenti non fit injuria apply disentitling him from claiming compensation from other joint tort feasors involved in the occurrence. Tribunal has not examined the claim canvassed in the case taking note of the above principle applicable where claim was raised by one joint tort feasor against another, and, that too after coming to a conclusion that the extent of culpability of such claimant was more than that of the driver of the other vehicle. 6. Learned counsel for claimant has argued before me that the tribunal has gone wrong in holding that he had contributed to the extent of 60% for the occurrence ignoring the plea of guilt by the driver of the other vehicle before the magistrate and sentence awarded to him on admission of such guilt. Contributory negligence was found against him was wrong and for the loss and injuries suffered by him he is entitled to more compensation, is the submission of counsel. Contributory negligence was found against him was wrong and for the loss and injuries suffered by him he is entitled to more compensation, is the submission of counsel. Since the tribunal has passed the award overlooking the principles applicable in adjudging the claim of compensation by one joint tort feasor against another, I do not propose to go into the aforesaid challenges canvassed by counsel to impeach the award. Tribunal has to consider the claim afresh where it is seen that the award passed in favour of the claimant after holding him culpable to the extent of 60% for the occurrence cannot be sustained. Contributory negligence of the claimant for the occurrence has to be examined afresh with other questions involved on remission of the case. That has to be done untrammelled by any of the observations made by the tribunal in the award already passed,and, challenged in this appeal. Setting aside the award the case is remitted for consideration afresh taking note of the observations made and in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear through counsel before the tribunal on 5.2.2014. The Tribunal is directed to dispose the claim as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of appearance of parties as fixed. Appeal is disposed as indicated above directing both sides to suffer their costs.