JUDGMENT These appeals coming up for orders on interlocutory applications viz., seeking dispensation, for condonation of delay and for stay of operation of the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The applications do not merit consideration as the appeals which are all filed on a common ground that the Tribunal has failed to address the aspect of contributory negligence on the part of one of the vehicles involved in the accident -the appeals are considered for final disposal. 2. It is to be noticed that the appellant is common in these appeals. The appellant is a road transport corporation seeking to question the common judgment whereby the claims of several passengers of a bus belonging to the appellant which had collided with a truck and as a result of which the several claimants having been injured had laid claim for compensation. That having been contested, was allowed by the Tribunal awarding various amounts of compensation in respect of the several claimants, which is sought to be questioned in these appeals, on the primary ground that there was contributory negligence on the part of the truck involved in the accident and therefore, the entire liability being fastened on the appellant was not proper and that it has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. 3. The claimants, as can be seen were all passengers in the bus and it would not be relevant whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the other vehicle involved in the accident. In so far as they are concerned, it is a case of composite negligence whereby the claimants are enabled to lay claim either on any one of the owners of the vehicles or on both the owners of the vehicles, involved in the accident. The degree of contributory negligence is also not relevant in such a case. Hence, even if the contributory negligence on the part of the truck involved in the accident was substantial, it would still not absolve the liability of the appellant in satisfying the claim. 4. It is open for the appellant to recover the compensation paid to the extent of contributory negligence, if that can be attributed to the other vehicle. Hence, even if the contributory negligence on the part of the truck involved in the accident was substantial, it would still not absolve the liability of the appellant in satisfying the claim. 4. It is open for the appellant to recover the compensation paid to the extent of contributory negligence, if that can be attributed to the other vehicle. For this, is also the settled law as laid down in a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation –Vs-Arun @ Aravind and Others ILR 2004 Karnataka 26. The appellant need not institute independent proceedings in that regard and the very Tribunal would be competent to decide the further claim for recovery, as contribution from the owner of the other offending vehicle, on establishing the contributory negligence on the part of the said vehicle. 5. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal for the benefit of the claimants.