JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 3.9.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar ('the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the appellants based on the compromise arrived at between the appellants and the respondent No. 5-Insurance Company, however, it has exonerated the respondents No. 1 & 2 from any liability. 2. The appellants-claimants filed applications for compensation in relation to the accident which occurred on 10.11.1994, in which accident, Santa Singh, Balvinder Singh, Mithu Singh, Balveer Kaur and Tej Kaur died on the spot and Makkhan Singh died in the hospital, the other occupants of the vehicle suffered injuries. It was alleged that the deceased and claimants Sema Singh etc. were travelling in Jeep No. PBM-8752 from Tarkhanwali to Banda Anoopgarh, which jeep was being driven by Ranjeet Singh; at about 1:30 p.m. when the jeep reached at 18BB, a roadways Bus No. RNP-3229 came from the opposite side, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Sohanlal, which bus collided with the jeep, resulting in the deaths and injuries to all the occupants. It was alleged that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the jeep as well as the bus. The application was opposed by the respondent Corporation inter-alia indicating that there was no negligence of the bus driver, which is evident from the fact that challan was only filed against the driver of the jeep. The owner and driver of the jeep also filed their reply and denied their liability and indicated that the liability, if any, was that of the insurance company. The insurance company filed its reply and disputed its liability. 3. Based on the averments of the parties, the Tribunal framed six issues. 4. On behalf of the claimants, five witnesses were examined and on behalf of the respondent-Corporation, driver of the bus was examined. 5. During the pendency of the claim applications, on 21.12.2000, the respondent No. 5- insurance company compromised the dispute with the claimants mutually and settled the same for various amounts i.e. Rs. 35,000/- with Sukhveer Kaur, Rs. 2,50,000/- with Sema Singh, Rs. 1,50,000/- with Surjeet Kaur, Rs. 1,25,000/- with Sukhdev Kaur, Rs. 1,10,000/- with Surjeet Kaur, Rs. 5. During the pendency of the claim applications, on 21.12.2000, the respondent No. 5- insurance company compromised the dispute with the claimants mutually and settled the same for various amounts i.e. Rs. 35,000/- with Sukhveer Kaur, Rs. 2,50,000/- with Sema Singh, Rs. 1,50,000/- with Surjeet Kaur, Rs. 1,25,000/- with Sukhdev Kaur, Rs. 1,10,000/- with Surjeet Kaur, Rs. 90,000/- with Chadat Singh and on account of such settlement, the dispute remained between the claimants and the driver of the roadways bus and the Corporation. 6. The Tribunal after analysing oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the driver of the jeep only and on account of its finding on the said aspect, exonerated the driver of the Bus and the Corporation and passed awards in terms of the compromise with the insurance company. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal committed grave error in coming to the conclusion that the driver of the bus was not negligent at all and that the present is a case of composite negligence, the driver of the bus and Corporation are liable for making payment of compensation, for which the claimants are entitled over and above the amount, which has been paid by the insurance company. 8. With reference to the statement of AW-4 Sukh Dev Kaur and AW-5 Sema Singh and NAW-1 Sohanlal, driver of the bus, it was submitted that the negligence of the driver of the bus was proved on record and therefore, the finding in this regard recorded by the Tribunal deserves to be set-aside. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation supported the findings of the Tribunal, it was submitted that a bare look at the documentary evidence available on record clearly proves that the accident occurred only on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the jeep and in absence of any negligence on part of the driver of the bus, the case of composite negligence cannot be found against the respondent-Corporation and therefore, the appeals deserve to be dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. A bare look at the facts of the case reveals that on 10.11.1994, more than ten persons were travelling in the jeep and it is the case of the claimants themselves that the driver of the jeep - Ranjeet Singh was driving the jeep rashly and negligently. However, it is also claimed that when the jeep was being driven in rash and negligent manner by Ranjeet Singh, the bus of the respondent-Corporation was also being driven rashly and negligently, which came from the opposite side, resulting in the accident and consequently, injuries to and death of the occupants. 12. On behalf of the claimants, two occupants of the jeep were examined as AW-4 Sukh Dev Kaur and AW-5 Sema Singh, who reiterated the allegation that both the vehicles were being driven rashly and negligently. The driver of the bus - Sohanlal, who appeared as NAW-1, alleged that driver of the jeep was seeking to overtake a tractor-trolley and lost control, struck the bus on the conductor side and then collided with a tree and turned turtle. 13. The driver claimed that he saw the jeep about 10 steps before the accident took place and stopped the bus there itself and alleged that the accident occurred only on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the jeep. 14. On behalf of the claimants, the documents prepared by the police during the course of investigation were exhibited. 15. A look at the site map Ex.-1, indicates that the jeep in question after colliding with the bus went about 50 feet by leaving the road and struck the tree and thereafter, went further 30 feet and then turned turtle. In the course of said 80 feet, the jeep had struck the bus and despite striking the bus has travelled almost 80 feet and that also after colliding with a tree clearly indicates that the jeep was being driven at excessively high speed. 16. A further look at the site map, indicates that the road in question was an absolute straight road and therefore, likelihood of the vehicles being plied at reasonably good speed cannot be ruled out. 17. 16. A further look at the site map, indicates that the road in question was an absolute straight road and therefore, likelihood of the vehicles being plied at reasonably good speed cannot be ruled out. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants emphasised that the bus in question, after collusion took place, has gone on to drag for 70 fts. before stopping, which indicates that the bus was also being driven at excessive speed and coupled with the fact that the driver in his statement claimed that the bus was stopped immediately after the collusion took place, which is factually incorrect, proves that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the driver of the bus as well. 18. A look at the site map (Ex.-1) in this regard indicates that the space of 70 feet has been indicated pertaining to the entire area, from which the tyre marks were found by the police and in fact, the accident has taken place in between and therefore, it cannot be said that the bus dragged for 70 feet after the collusion took place. 19. Further the MTO reports clearly indicates that there were accident marks on the conductor side of the bus and on the jeep there were accident marks on both the sides. The very fact that the jeep went on all the way from its correct side and struck the bus on the conductor side and then as already noticed hereinbefore another 80 feet clearly indicates that the driver of the jeep totally lost control of the vehicle in question and the same resulted in the accident. 20. The very fact that the jeep went on all the way from its correct side and struck the bus on the conductor side and then as already noticed hereinbefore another 80 feet clearly indicates that the driver of the jeep totally lost control of the vehicle in question and the same resulted in the accident. 20. The Tribunal, in its impugned judgment after analysing the evidence on record came to the following conclusion:- ^^30- uD'kk ekSdk esa cl dks xtflagiqj ls Jhxaxkuxj dh rjQ tkuk vkSj cl dk viuh lkbZM esa gksuk crk;k x;k gS vkSj cl dks fcYdqy ckbZ lkbZM esa [kM+k gksuk crk;k gSA thi dks Jhxaxkuxj ls ineiqj dh rjQ tkuk vkSj viuh lkbZM NksM+dj thi dks xyr fn'kk esa ys tkdj cl ds ckbZ rjQ dUMsDVj lkbZM esa VDdj ekjuk vkSj VDdj ekjdj vkxs tkdj isM+ ls Vdjkuk crk;k gSA bl izdkj uD'kk ekSdk izn'kZ 3 o gkykr ekSdk izn'kZ rhu , ls Li"V gks jgk gS fd thi pkyd us VªsDVj Vªksyh dks vksoj Vsd fd;k mlh le; lkeus ls jksMost dh cl vk xbZ vkSj thi pkyd us viuh lkbZM NksM+dj nkbZ lkbZM esa tkdj cl ds dUMsDVj lkbZM esa VDdj ekjh vkSj fQj isM+ ls Vdjk xbZA bl izdkj dqN lokfj;ka thi ds cl ls Vdjkus ls o dqN isM+ ls thi ds Vdjkus ls ekjh xbZA cl viuh lgh fn'kk o lkbZM esa tk jgh FkhA ;fn cl viuh lkbZM esa u gksdj xyr lkbZM esa gks rks vo'; gh cl pkyd dh ykijokgh ekuh tk ldrh FkhA ,slh fLFkfr esa tgka lkeus ls dksbZ thi viuh lkbZM esa gksrs gq, vkrh gS vkSj mlds ckn og VsªDVj Vªksyh dks vksoj Vsd djds xyr fn'kk esa tkrh gS rks fdlh Hkh okgu pkyd ds ikl dsoy ;g gh fodYi jgrk gS fd og vius okgu dks viuh lkbZM esa vf/kd ls vf/kd dj ys ,oa /khek dj ldrk gS fdUrq ,dne vius okgu dks ugha jksd ldrk gSA 35- bl izdkj tks fLFkfr uD'kk ekSdk izn'kZ rhu o gkykr ekSdk izn'kZ 3, esa vkbZ gSa] mlls Li"V gS fd thi pkyd us thi dks xyr lkbZM esa ys tkdj cl tks viuh lkbZM esa tk jgh Fkh] ds dUMsDVj lkbZM esa VDdj ekjh vkSj fQj thi dks isM+ ls tkdj Vdjk fn;kA blesa cl pkyd dh dksbZ ykijokgh ugha ekuh tk ldrh gSA blds vykok mijksDr lHkh ;kfpvksa ds izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls uD'kk ekSdk izn'kZ 3] gkykr ekSdk izn'kZ 3, ,oa eSdsfudy eqvk;uk fjiksVZ izn'kZ pkj dks Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS ,oa lk{; ds nkSjku bUgsa iznf'kZr djok;k x;k gS ,oa fdlh Hkh xokg us ;g ugha crk;k gS fd mDr nLrkost xyr rS;kj fd;s x;s gSA blds vykok bl nq?kZVuk ds laca/k esa tks pktZ'khV izn'kZ nks is'k dh xbZ gS] og Hkh thi pkyd vizkFkhZ la[;k rhu j.kthrflag ds fo:) gh izLrqr dh xbZ gSa ,oa vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh us thi pkyd dh xyrh bl nq?kZVuk dks dkfjr djus esa ekuh gS ,oa cl pkyd ds fo:) dksbZ pkyku izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZx.k ds lk{khx.k dk ;g dFku fd VDdj vkeus lkeus ls gqbZ FkhA ekuus ;ksX; ugha gS] D;ksafd ;fn VDdj vkeus lkeus ls gksrh rks cl ds lkeus okyh lkbZM esa iwjh rjg ls eksp viuh pkfg, Fkh] ysfdu cl ds dsoy dUMsDVj lkbZM gh {kfrxzLr gqbZ gS blls Li"V gS fd thi pkyd us thi dh rsth o ykijokgh ls pykdj mDr nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh FkhA** 21. The above finding of the Tribunal, as already discussed herein-before cannot be said to be perverse so as to require interference by this Court. 22. So far as the plea raised by learned counsel for the appellants pertaining to composite negligence is concerned, for the occupants of the vehicle to seek benefit or allege composite negligence, it is necessary that there must be negligence of both the vehicles involved and as the findings in this regard has been recorded that it was only the driver of the jeep, who was negligent in driving the jeep, which resulted in the accident, there is no case of composite negligence as well. 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others, (2015) 9 SCC 273 , laid down as under:- "It is a case of composite negligence where injuries have been caused to the claimants by combined wrongful act of joint tort feasors. In a case of accident caused by negligence of joint tort feasors, all the persons who aid or counsel or direct or join in committal of a wrongful act, are liable. In such case, the liability is always joint and several. The extent of negligence of joint tort fears in such a case is immaterial for satisfaction of the claim of the plaintiff/claimant and need not be determined by the court. However, in case all the joint tort feasors are before the court, it may determine the extent of their liability for the purpose of adjusting inter-se equities between them at appropriate stage. The liability of each and every joint tort feasor vis-a-vis to plaintiff/claimant cannot be bifurcated as it is joint and several liability. In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between tort feasors for making payment to the plaintiff is not permissible as the plaintiff/claimant has the right to recover the entire amount from the easiest targets/ solvent defendant." (Emphasis supplied) 24. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that in view of the fact that bus was a bigger vehicle, extra care was required by its driver and reliance was placed on judgment in Smt. Madhu Sehgal & Others v. H.R.T.C. & Others, 1998 ACJ 127. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that in view of the fact that bus was a bigger vehicle, extra care was required by its driver and reliance was placed on judgment in Smt. Madhu Sehgal & Others v. H.R.T.C. & Others, 1998 ACJ 127. Merely because the vehicle in question is a bigger vehicle, cannot be a reason enough to always hold the said bigger vehicle liable for negligence irrespective of the conduct of the smaller vehicle, which in the present case has been found to be callously negligent. 25. In view of the fact that the claimants, as advised, settled the dispute with the insurer of the jeep, the Tribunal has not calculated the entitlement of the appellants on account of the death/injuries suffered by them and has confined the award in terms of the compromise, the said action of the Tribunal also cannot be faulted, once the liability was not found of the driver of the bus/Corporation. 26. In view of the above discussion, no interference is called for in the awards impugned. There is no substance in the appeals, the same are, therefore, dismissed.