JUDGMENT : R.R. TRIPATHI, J. 1. These first appeals are filed by driver, owner and insurer of the truck bearing registration No. RJ 02-G 0952. The appellant No. 1 is the driver, appellant No. 2 is the owner and appellant No. 3 is the insurer of the truck. These first appeals are filed being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 19.1.2000 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary-V), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, in M.A.C.P. No. 1398 of 1994 and other four claim petitions. 1.1 These five claim applications arose out of one single accident which occurred on 27.6.1994, wherein a Fiat car bearing registration No. GAE 3473 hit an ongoing truck from behind, resulting in death of driver of the car and also persons travelling in the car. The car was driven by one Babubhai Kanjibhai Patel (M.A.C.P. No. 1398 of 1994). 1.2 The case of the claimants as recorded by the Hon'ble Tribunal is set out para 1. The same reads as under: "(1) These claim petitions have been filed by the applicants to get compensation as per the provision contained in section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 because of the death of deceased Babubhai Kanjibhai Patel, Devendra-bhai Ramanbhai Patel, Arvindbhai Kantilal Patel, Dilipbhai Ambalal Patel and Rasiklal Pursottamdas Patel in a motor accident which occurred on 27.6.1994 when the aforesaid all the deceased were travelling in Fiat car No. GAE 3473. The said car was driven by Babubhai Kanjibhai Patel. He was driving the said car at a slow speed, carefully and observing the traffic rules. At about 6 a.m. in the morning the opponent No. 1 came with his truck No. RJ 02-G 0952 at a fast speed and overtook Fiat car in which the aforesaid deceased were travelling. The said truck was loaded with plates and other material of iron. The plates were hanging outside the rear portion of the body of the truck. The truck driver had not put any signal and its brake lights were also not on. After overtaking the car the driver of the truck suddenly applied brakes in the middle of the road. Due to sudden application of brakes by the driver of the truck in the middle of the road the car following the truck went into the plates hanging outside the rear portion of the truck. And all the aforesaid deceased sustained serious injuries and died. Due to sudden application of brakes by the driver of the truck in the middle of the road the car following the truck went into the plates hanging outside the rear portion of the truck. And all the aforesaid deceased sustained serious injuries and died. It is alleged that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the truck driver the accident occurred. The petitioners of M.A.C.P. Nos. 1398, 1391, 1399, 1400 and 1422 of 1994 have claimed Rs. 10,00,000/-, Rs. 6,00,000/-, Rs. 10,00,000/-, Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 16,00,000/- for the compensation." 1.3 As the facts in all the five petitions were same, all the petitions were consolidated vide Exh. 40 and the evidence was recorded in M.A.C.P. No. 1398 of 1994. The insurer of the truck filed detailed written statement at Exh. 14, wherein all the allegations made in the claim petitions were denied in toto and it was contended that accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of opponent No. 1 (driver of the truck) and it was prayed that the petitions be dismissed. 2. The Hon'ble Tribunal has recorded in para 4 of the judgment and award as under: "(4) In this matter the opponent Nos. 1 to 4 have filed their detailed written statement at Exh. 75 (similar W.S. has been filed in all the petitions) wherein they have denied all the allegations made in the petition in toto. They, inter alia, contended that the contents of the claim application are not true and not admitted. It is denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of Fiat car. Hence they prayed to dismiss the claim petition filed by the applicants." 2.1 The Hon'ble Claims Tribunal articulated the issues at Exh. 20. Issue No. 1 was to the effect that, "whether the applicant proves that deceased died as a result of rash and/or negligent driving of vehicle tanker No. RJ 02-G 0952 by opponent Nos. 1 to 3?". The Hon'ble Tribunal considered question of negligence in detail in para 11 onwards. The Hon'ble Tribunal considered written arguments vide Exh. 154. The Hon'ble Tribunal considered F.I.R., Exh. 104. It also considered eyewitness account of one Ranjitsinh Keshrisinh Rana, Exh. 146, and taking into consideration the contents of the aforesaid documents including that of Exh. 1 to 3?". The Hon'ble Tribunal considered question of negligence in detail in para 11 onwards. The Hon'ble Tribunal considered written arguments vide Exh. 154. The Hon'ble Tribunal considered F.I.R., Exh. 104. It also considered eyewitness account of one Ranjitsinh Keshrisinh Rana, Exh. 146, and taking into consideration the contents of the aforesaid documents including that of Exh. 141, wherein the driver (of the truck) admitted his offence and was imposed fine. The Hon'ble Tribunal referred to and relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Patna (Ranchi Bench) in the case of Laxmi and Company v. Savitri Devi Agarwal (Loyalka), 1990 ACJ 450 (Patna). The Hon'ble Tribunal also referred to and relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Bhagwani Devi v. Krishan Kumar Saini, 1986 ACJ 331 (PandH) and held that driver of the truck, opponent No. 1, was solely responsible for the accident. 3. Mr. Sunil B. Parikh, learned advocate for the appellant insurance company, vehemently contended that the Hon'ble Tribunal has committed a grave error in holding that the driver of the truck, which was proceeding ahead of the car and was dashed by the car, was solely responsible for the accident. Learned advocate for the appellant insurance company submitted that assuming for the sake of argument that it is true that the driver of the truck applied sudden brake, the rule is that the vehicle following the ongoing vehicle has to maintain a safe distance and has to be in such a speed in which he can stop his vehicle in case of any emergency. 3.1 Learned advocate for the appellant insurance company submitted that in the present case, it is not mentioned in the panchnama that 'the ongoing truck applied sudden brake, leaving brake marks on the road'. The learned advocate submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal could have come to a conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the truck and not on the part of the driver of Fiat car, if there was necessary evidence to that effect. The learned advocate for appellant insurance company submitted that the so called eyewitness Ranjitsinh Keshrisinh Rana could not have been relied upon by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the light of the fact that his version of the accident is unbelievable. Not only that, even his presence cannot be believed. The learned advocate for appellant insurance company submitted that the so called eyewitness Ranjitsinh Keshrisinh Rana could not have been relied upon by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the light of the fact that his version of the accident is unbelievable. Not only that, even his presence cannot be believed. The evidence of the so called eyewitness is not inspiring any confidence, but still relying on the same, the Hon'ble Tribunal has held the truck driver to be 100 per cent negligent. Learned advocate for the appellant insurance company submitted that similarly, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the iron plates loaded in the truck were hanging out, but that is not a relevant factor to decide the question of negligence on the part of either driver. It is not the case of the claimants that the accident took place because iron plates were hanging out from the truck. The very fact that the car hit the truck from behind with such a force that not only the driver and the occupant of the front seat of the car died but even the persons sitting in the rear seat of the car have also died. The speed of the car and the force with which it hit the truck can be assessed from these facts. In the light of these facts, the factum of iron plates hanging out from the body of the truck is of no significance, more particularly on the question of negligence. 3.2 Learned advocate for the appellant insurance company invited attention of the court to the appreciation of the evidence of the eyewitness which is found in para 14, wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal has appreciated the evidence consisting of complaint, Exh. 104; panchnama, Exh. 105; and the deposition of the eyewitness Ranjitsinh Kesharisinh Rana, Exh. 146. For ready perusal, para 14 is reproduced: "(14) The applicants have produced evidence with list, Exh. 49, which consists of complaint, Exh. 104; panchnama, Exh. 105, etc. The complaint, Exh. 104, shows the death of the deceased persons. It also shows the names of the deceased. Consequent upon the complaint, Exh. 104, panchnama was drawn to that effect. The panchnama shows the number of both the vehicles involved in accident. Thus, the factum of the accident and involvement of both the vehicles is proved by documentary evidence. The complaint, Exh. 104, shows the death of the deceased persons. It also shows the names of the deceased. Consequent upon the complaint, Exh. 104, panchnama was drawn to that effect. The panchnama shows the number of both the vehicles involved in accident. Thus, the factum of the accident and involvement of both the vehicles is proved by documentary evidence. The applicants have also examined one eyewitness, Ranjitsinh, at Exh. 146. He has deposed that at the time of the accident there was darkness. It is also deposed that one truck was loaded with iron plates and some plates were hanging and lying outside the rear side of the truck in question. It is also deposed that the driver of the truck had not kept any light or reflector to avoid this unfortunate accident. It is also deposed that Fiat car was proceeding on the back side of the truck. He has deposed that the driver of the truck had applied brakes suddenly and abruptly due to which the following Fiat car dashed on the back side of the truck and iron plates too. It is thus clear that the applying of sudden brakes by the driver of the truck is the root cause of the accident. It is an admitted position that the truck was loaded with iron plates. It is a case of the applicants that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained on account of these iron plates. It appears that the truck was overloaded with iron plates. It may be stated that the eyewitness Ranjitsinh at Exh. 146 has clearly deposed that the truck was loaded with iron plates and some plates were hanging and lying outside the body of the truck. Thus, the say of the applicants is also supported by the oral evidence, who is also an eyewitness to the accident. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the say of the applicant that the truck was overloaded with iron plates hanging outside the body of the truck due to which the accident occurred and passengers in the car lost their lives. Thus, the driver was negligent in loading the goods in such a dangerous manner and not putting any red light or flag on the goods lying outside the body of the truck and applying sudden brakes in the middle of the road. Thus, the driver was negligent in loading the goods in such a dangerous manner and not putting any red light or flag on the goods lying outside the body of the truck and applying sudden brakes in the middle of the road. If he had not loaded the goods in a dangerous manner which he has preferred and had put red light or flag as an indicator on goods hanging outside the body of the truck, certainly this unfortunate accident could be avoided. The eyewitness Ranjitsinh had also clarified in his deposition that the driver of the truck had not kept any reflector/light on the iron plates hanging outside the body of the truck. Had he kept any reflector or light on the iron plates, certainly the other vehicles following the truck could have been cautioned. Learned advocate of the applicants have placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Laxmi and Company v. Savitri Devi Agarwal (Loyalka), 1990 ACJ 450 (Patna) and judgment in the case of Bhagwani Devi v. Krishan Kumar Saini, 1986 ACJ 331 (PandH) and argued that when the driver of the offending vehicle has not been examined, adverse inference requires to be drawn against him. In the present case, the driver of Fiat car succumbed to death. The driver of the truck in question has not been examined by the other side. I agree with the principle laid down in the aforesaid citations and the arguments advanced by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants. In view of the citations as above, adverse inference requires to be drawn against the opponents. As against above, the learned advocate of the other side has argued that the driver of Fiat car could see the preceding truck and the question of putting red light or red flag on the iron plates does not arise. It is also argued that the real and moot cause of the accident is the excessive speed of the car. At this stage it would be just and proper to state that the opponent has not produced either oral or documentary evidence to prove its contentions that Fiat car was in excessive speed and as against this contention there is oral evidence of eyewitness. Thus, I do not agree with the arguments advanced by the opponents' advocate. At this stage it would be just and proper to state that the opponent has not produced either oral or documentary evidence to prove its contentions that Fiat car was in excessive speed and as against this contention there is oral evidence of eyewitness. Thus, I do not agree with the arguments advanced by the opponents' advocate. So far as the argument of the other side about projection of rods or iron plates in the truck is concerned, it is argued that the panchnama, Exh. 104, does not mention the same. It may be stated here that the deposition of eyewitness is very much clear to answer the contention of the other side. The eyewitness Ranjitsinh in his clear words stated that the iron plates were hanging outside. Thus, there is no substance in the arguments of the learned advocate of the other side. The learned advocate of the other side has submitted that the eyewitness Ranjitsinh had admitted that by the headlight of the car, any vehicle going ahead of it can be seen by any driver following the truck, it can very well be presumed that the contents of the rear parts of the truck can equally be seen. At this juncture it would be just and proper to state that the eyewitness has deposed that there was some darkness and it was cloudy atmosphere at the time of the accident, he has also deposed that the truck driver had not put any red signal or red flag on the goods hanging outside the body of the truck. Thus, it is very difficult for the driver of following vehicle to assess in the darkness the danger his preceding vehicle poses. It is very difficult for a driver of following vehicle, even though the headlights are on, to sight the goods protruding outside the body of the preceding vehicle in darkness and in absence of any red light or red flag on it, and in the present case it is clear from the deposition of the eyewitness that the truck driver had applied brakes suddenly and abruptly. Thus applying sudden brakes and loading goods protruding outside the body of the truck and not keeping any red light or indicator is the root cause of the accident. Thus applying sudden brakes and loading goods protruding outside the body of the truck and not keeping any red light or indicator is the root cause of the accident. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, documentary evidence such as F.I.R. and panchnama and the oral evidence of the eyewitness and also view of the aforesaid judgments I hold that the driver of the truck was solely responsible for the accident and the driver of the car has not contributed to the cause of the accident. Hence, I answer issue No. 1 accordingly." 3.3 The learned advocate for the appellant insurance company submitted that appreciation of the evidence of eyewitness by the Hon'ble Tribunal is erroneous. The Hon'ble Tribunal has recorded that the eyewitness deposed that, "one truck was loaded with iron plates and some plates were hanging and lying outside the rear side of the truck in question. It is also deposed that the driver of the truck had not kept any light or reflector to avoid this unfortunate accident". It is also deposed that, "Fiat car was proceeding on the back side of the truck". He has deposed that, "driver of the truck had applied brakes suddenly and abruptly due to which the following Fiat car dashed on the back side of the truck and iron plates too. It is thus clear that the applying of sudden brakes by the driver of the truck is the root cause of the accident". (Emphasis supplied) 4. From a person who is on the road for a morning walk, to expect that he will be vigilant to such an extent that he will observe all and take note of all these factors is certainly abnormal. In such circumstances, whether he can be relied upon is a question which requires serious consideration. Besides, there is one very important aspect which cannot be lost sight of. This witness after seeing the accident does not inform police. Instead, he goes away from the scene of occurrence. It is at a later stage the police finds him. How? Nobody knows. Then he deposes in such detail before the Hon'ble Tribunal. This is a question which is required to be considered in these first appeals. 5. This witness after seeing the accident does not inform police. Instead, he goes away from the scene of occurrence. It is at a later stage the police finds him. How? Nobody knows. Then he deposes in such detail before the Hon'ble Tribunal. This is a question which is required to be considered in these first appeals. 5. Besides that, the learned advocate for the appellant insurance company submitted that conduct of this so called eyewitness assumes importance and the same is required to be kept in mind while deciding the question of trustworthiness of his evidence. The learned advocate submitted that even at the cost of repetition, he be allowed to reiterate that he is a person who did not go to the police station to inform the police about the accident. It is the say of this eyewitness that after seeing the accident, he went home. It was only when at a subsequent stage the police came searching for him, he appeared on the scene as an eyewitness. Learned advocate for the appellant insurance company submitted that the question which remains to be answered is, 'how did police come to know that this man was present (on the road) when the accident took place and he witnessed the accident taking place?' Learned advocate for the appellant insurance company submitted that things would have been different if this person had gone to the police station immediately after having seen the accident and had informed the police about occurrence of the accident, then police would have known that he is the eyewitness. Learned advocate for the appellant insurance company vehemently submitted that the so called eyewitness is nothing but a got-up eyewitness, relying on whom the Hon'ble Tribunal has held the truck driver to be 100 per cent negligent. The learned advocate for the appellant insurance company submitted that it is true that driver of Fiat car lost his life in an accident in which other co-passengers also lost their lives. While one has full sympathy for them, the question of liability of paying compensation is required to be decided on the basis of the material on record. The learned advocate for the appellant insurance company submitted that it is true that driver of Fiat car lost his life in an accident in which other co-passengers also lost their lives. While one has full sympathy for them, the question of liability of paying compensation is required to be decided on the basis of the material on record. One has to do that according to law and the law is that a vehicle which is following another vehicle has to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle proceeding ahead and has to be well within such speed in which in the event any emergency arises, one is able to stop one's vehicle to avoid the accident. 5.1 In this regard, learned advocate for the appellant insurance company invited attention of the court to rule 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, which was cited before the Hon'ble Tribunal but then the same is not properly appreciated. For ready reference, rule 23 is reproduced herein below: "23. Distance from vehicles in front.-The driver of a motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop." 5.2 Learned advocate for the appellant insurance company submitted that in the present case, it is clear that what weighed with the Hon'ble Tribunal is that 'if the driver of truck is held solely responsible, the claimants will be able to get the compensation from the insurer of the truck', because it is a matter of record that the car did not have insurance at all. Not only that, the driver of the car had also died. So there was nobody who could be subjected to cross-examination on the question of actual occurrence of the accident and that is why the got-up eyewitness was produced, who is believed by the Hon'ble Tribunal and a finding is recorded to the effect that it was on account of application of sudden brake by the truck driver the accident took place and, therefore, truck driver is solely responsible. 5.3 Learned advocate for the appellant insurance company relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Dr. 5.3 Learned advocate for the appellant insurance company relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M., 2001 ACJ 2059 (SC), in support of his submission that it is the owner of the car who will be liable to pay compensation in the event there is no insurer of the car, despite the fact that ownership of the car was transferred. Learned advocate for the appellant insurance company has invited attention of the court to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 10, which reads as under: "(10) We agree with Mr. Iyer that the High Court was not right in holding that the appellant continued to be the owner as the name had not been changed in the records of R.T.O. There can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. The evidence on record shows that ownership of the car had been transferred. However, the appellant still continued to remain liable to third parties as his name continued in the records of R.T.O. as owner. The appellant could not escape that liability by merely joining Roy Thomas in these appeals. Roy Thomas was not a party either before M.A.C.T. or the High Court. In these appeals we cannot and will not go into the question of inter se liability between the appellant and Roy Thomas. It will be for the appellant to adopt appropriate proceedings against Roy Thomas if, in law, he is entitled to do so." 5.4 In the present case also, Vijay-kumar M. Khatri, respondent No. 4, who is impleaded as opponent No. 2 in the first appeals, is also contending before this court that he had sold the car. 24.7.2014: 6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid discussion, the judgment and award of the Hon'ble Tribunal is required to be varied so far as ascertainment of negligence is concerned. By any standard, findings recorded by the Hon'ble Tribunal that the driver of the truck was 100 per cent negligent, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, even if it is accepted that the truck driver had applied sudden brakes. 6.1 This court, in its considered opinion, cannot absolve the driver of Fiat car, who unfortunately lost his life in the accident, for being negligent. 6.1 This court, in its considered opinion, cannot absolve the driver of Fiat car, who unfortunately lost his life in the accident, for being negligent. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that it will be in the interest of justice if both drivers are held negligent to the extent of 50 per cent. This negligence of 50 per cent on the part of the truck driver is because it is not brought on record either by the truck driver himself or by anybody on his behalf as to what exactly had happened on the fateful day which caused such serious accident wherein four human lives were lost. In absence of any material on record to the contrary, there is reason for this court to believe that, "Fiat car driver was not out to commit suicide, if the truck driver would not have applied sudden brakes, there was no reason for the car to hit the truck going ahead of the car". At the same time, there being violation of rule 23 in not driving the car at a moderate speed and at a safe distance so as to meet with any unforeseen emergency/contingency, the driver of Fiat car is held contributory negligent and negligence is apportioned in the ratio of 50:50. 6.2 So far as the liability of payment of 50 per cent of the compensation payable by the driver, owner and insurer of Fiat car is concerned, it is the liability of driver-cum-owner of the car, who did not take care of having valid insurance coverage before plying the car on the road and, therefore, taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. T.V. Jose, , 2001 ACJ 2059 (SC), the owner whose name continues to be in the R.T.O. record is held responsible to pay the compensation. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it will be open for the registered owner of the car to take appropriate proceedings against the new owner of the car, if he is so entitled. 7. Mr. R.A. Sejpal, learned advocate, submitted that on the principle of joint tortfeasor, the claimant should be held entitled to recover the entire amount of compensation from any one of the tortfeasors. 7. Mr. R.A. Sejpal, learned advocate, submitted that on the principle of joint tortfeasor, the claimant should be held entitled to recover the entire amount of compensation from any one of the tortfeasors. In support of this submission, he relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pawan Kumar v. Harkishan Dass Mohan Lal, 2014 ACJ 704 (SC). The learned advocate invited attention of the court to paras 6 and 7, which read as under: "(6) The distinction between the principles of composite and contributory negligence has been dealt with in Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, 15th Edn., 1998, Chapter 21. It would be appropriate to notice the following passage from the said work: 'Where two or more people by their independent breaches of duty to the plaintiff cause him to suffer distinct injuries, no special rules are required, for each tortfeasor is liable for the damage which he caused and only for that damage. Where, however, two or more breaches of duty by different persons cause the plaintiff to suffer a single injury the position is more complicated. The law in such a case is that the plaintiff is entitled to sue all or any of them for the full amount of his loss, and each is said to be jointly and severally liable for it. This means that special rules are necessary to deal with the possibilities of successive actions in respect of that loss and of claims for contribution or indemnity by one tortfeasor against the others. It is greatly to the plaintiffs advantage to show that he has suffered the same, indivisible harm at the hands of a number of defendants for he thereby avoids the risk, inherent in cases where there are different injuries, of finding that one defendant is insolvent (or uninsured) and being unable to execute judgment against him. The same picture is not, of course, so attractive from the point of view of the solvent defendant, who may end up carrying full responsibility for a loss in the causing of which he played only a partial, even secondary, role. xxx xxx xxx The question of whether there is one injury can be a difficult one. The same picture is not, of course, so attractive from the point of view of the solvent defendant, who may end up carrying full responsibility for a loss in the causing of which he played only a partial, even secondary, role. xxx xxx xxx The question of whether there is one injury can be a difficult one. The simplest case is that of two virtually simultaneous acts of negligence, as where two drivers behave negligently and collide, injuring a passenger in one of the cars or a pedestrian, but there is no requirement that the acts be simultaneous...' (7) Where the plaintiff-claimant himself is found to be a party to the negligence, the question of joint and several liability cannot arise and the plaintiffs claim to the extent of his own negligence, as may be quantified, will have to be severed. In such a situation the plaintiff can only be held entitled to such part of damages/compensation that is not attributable to his own negligence. The above principle has been explained in T.O. Anthony, 2008 ACJ 1165 (SC) and followed in K. Hemalatha, 2008 ACJ 2170 (SC). Paras 6 and 7 of T.O. Anthony (supra) which are relevant may be extracted herein-below: '(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 wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer 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 wrongdoer 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 the 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. On the other hand, where a person suffers injury, partly due to the 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. 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 injured-claimant himself was negligent, then it becomes necessary to consider as to 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'." 7. 1 Learned advocate submitted that taking that into consideration, the claimants in other appeals, i.e., First Appeal Nos. 385 to 388 of 2000 should be held entitled to recover the amount from the insurance company of the truck, which in turn may recover the amount from registered owner of Fiat car. 8. This contention stands answered by a Division Bench judgment of this court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kesharben Ravjibhai Dabasiya, F.A. No. 1105 of 2003; decided on 18.7.2013, wherein the Division Bench has observed in para 14 as under: "(14) At the first breath the contention may appear to be with substance, but on further scrutiny it appears that had the claimant been interested in full amount of compensation, he ought to have joined the driver and the owner of the car as party respondent in the claim petition and the insurance company also, if any, of the car. Original claimants have consciously not joined the driver or owner of the car. Under the circumstances, it can be said that they abandoned the right qua the driver and owner of the car..." (Emphasis supplied) 8.1 In the present case, the driver of Fiat car was owner of the car (not the registered owner in the R.T.O. record). It was within the knowledge of the persons who succumbed to the injuries that the driver and owner of Fiat car was not having insurance coverage for the vehicle. Claimants herein-in F.A. Nos. 385 to 388 of 2000-have not impleaded the heirs and legal representatives of the driver-cum-owner (new) of the car and, therefore, on the basis of the principle laid down by the Division Bench in the aforesaid decision, the claimants have abandoned their right to claim compensation from one of the joint tortfeasors. Still, however, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Dr. T.V. Jose, , 2001 ACJ 2059 (SC), this court does not disentitle them to recover 50 per cent amount of compensation from the registered owner of Fiat car, if they wish to do so. 9. The first appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent, viz., the appellant insurance company is liable to pay only 50 per cent of the amount of compensation and remaining 50 per cent amount will be payable by the registered owner of Fiat car. In the event the insurance company has deposited the entire awarded amount, the Hon'ble Tribunal shall refund 50 per cent of the amount. The claimants will be entitled to execute the judgment and award for the remaining 50 per cent against the registered owner of Fiat car. So far as F.A. No. 384 of 2000 is concerned, the same is filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the driver-cum-owner of Fiat car. As he is held negligent to the extent of 50 per cent, they will not be able to recover that 50 per cent of the compensation, as it is due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. They will be entitled to only 50 per cent of the amount of compensation from the driver, owner and insurance company of the truck.