JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. Heard Mr. M.T.M. Hakim, learned advocate for the Appellant and Mr. Hardik C. Rawal, learned advocate for the Respondent/Defendant no.2. Presence of remaining Respondent/s is not much material. However, they are served but absent since Respondent No.1 is driver of Respondent No.2, whereas, Respondent No.3 is owner of other vehicle against whom there is no prayer in this appeal. 2. Very small and limited issue is involved in this appeal and, therefore, without entering into minute details and history of incident and litigation, the same needs to be summarily disposed of because the Tribunal has erred in fixing limited liability of different vehicle owners while awarding compensation under 'No Fault Liability' under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as M.V. Act.) 3. The impugned order dated 7.5.2015 is below Exh.5, an application for interim compensation under Section 140 of the M.V. Act under 'No Fault Liability' before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Sabarkantha @ Himmatnagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.546 of 2013. Such main petition is filed by present Appellant being victim of the road accident as a pillion rider of one Motor Cycle No.GJ9AS9683 which was hit on its back side by S.T. Bus No.GJ18Y5103 on 26.4.2013. Because of such incident, the driver of the motor cycle was seriously injured and died during the treatment, his legal heirs have, therefore, preferred Motor Accident Claims Petition No.545 of 2013. Though, an application for interim compensation by such legal heirs of driver of motor cycle has been filed against driver and owner of S.T. Bus on same day and though the same Tribunal has awarded 100% amount of `No Fault Liability' against S.T. Corporation, so far as application by present applicant is concerned, the same Tribunal has bifurcated the liability of paying compensation between driver and owner of S.T. Bus and motor cycle owner equally i.e. in ratio of 50:50%. It is not certain that whether motorcycle was insured or not, but till date insurance company of motor cycle is not joined as opponent. 4. Therefore, Claimants have preferred this appeal claiming that since he is pillion rider, he has nothing to bother about negligence of both the drivers and that he is entitled to full set of compensation from any of the joint tortfeasors where he is not concerned or connected with the accident. 4. Therefore, Claimants have preferred this appeal claiming that since he is pillion rider, he has nothing to bother about negligence of both the drivers and that he is entitled to full set of compensation from any of the joint tortfeasors where he is not concerned or connected with the accident. In support of his claim, learned advocate for the Appellant is relying upon a full bench decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2015(9) SCC 273 , wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that there is difference between contributory and composite negligence. Relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereunder: "There is a difference between contributory and composite negligence. In the case of contributory negligence, a person who has himself contributed to the extent cannot claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident to the extent of his own negligence. However, in the case of composite negligence, a person who has suffered has not contributed to the accident but the outcome of combination of negligence of two or more other persons. Extent of his negligence is required to be determined as damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries have to be reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. However, in the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/Claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several. The present 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 owner, driver and insurer of one of the vehicles can be sued and it is not necessary to sue owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles. The Claimant may implead the owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles or anyone of them. In such case, the liability is always joint and several. The owner, driver and insurer of one of the vehicles can be sued and it is not necessary to sue owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles. The Claimant may implead the owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles or anyone of them. However, even if all the joint tort feasors are impleaded and both the drivers have entered the witness box and the tribunal or the court is able to determine the extent of negligence of each of the driver that is for the purpose of inter se liability between the joint tort feasors but their liability would remain joint and several so as to satisfy the plaintiff/Claimant. The extent of negligence of joint tort feasors in such a case is immaterial for satisfaction of the claim of the plaintiff/Claimant and need not be determined by the court. 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. It is not necessary to implead all joint tort feasors and due to failure of impleadment of all joint tort feasors, compensation cannot be reduced to the extent of negligence of nonimpleaded tort feasors. 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." 5. In view of above facts and circumstances, when Tribunal has unnecessarily bifurcated the responsibility and liability of tortfeasors at such interim stage even before affording an opportunity to all the parties to lead their evidence and prove their case, the impugned order certainly needs to be interfered with so as to modify it to the extent that Claimant - Appellant is entitled to recover entire compensation from any of the tortfeasors. It cannot be ignored that even nature of the accident is also quite clear to prove prima-facie that probably motor cycle driver was not negligent when such motorcycle was hit by heavy vehicle like S.T. Bus on its back. 6. Under the above circumstances, present appeal is allowed. It cannot be ignored that even nature of the accident is also quite clear to prove prima-facie that probably motor cycle driver was not negligent when such motorcycle was hit by heavy vehicle like S.T. Bus on its back. 6. Under the above circumstances, present appeal is allowed. Thereby, the impugned order is modified to the extent that so far as bifurcation of liability between different Opponents are concerned; that part is quashed and set aside by making it clear that both the parties are at liberty to adduce evidence to prove the negligence of particular driver. Thereby, Claimant is entitled to recover full set of compensation from any of the Opponents.