JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. These appeals are directed against the judgment and awards dated 25/5/2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has assessed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,14,556/- for the claimant Smt. Safeda Begum and has reduced the sum by 25% on account of contributory negligence of Noorsamand and held that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 85,917/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 13/8/2015. 2. While the driver & owner Ram Swaroop has questioned the quantum of compensation and correctness of the issue pertaining to rash and negligent driving, the claimant Safeda Begum has filed appeal questioning the reduction of award on account of contributory negligence of Noorsamand and for enhancement of compensation. 3. The application for compensation was filed by claimant Safeda Begum inter alia with the averments that on 7/5/2015 one Noorsamand along with Anara Begum and claimant Safeda Begum were driving on a Motorcycle, which was followed by a Tempo being driven by Sureshiya, when the said vehicles reached near 'Khunja Nahar', a Mahendra Maxmo Mini Van (Tempo), which was being driven by Ram Swaroop rashly and negligently struck the Motorcycle resulting in the occupants of Motorcycle suffering grievous injuries. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,47,100/- was claimed by Safeda Begum. 4. The application was contested by the appellant owner & driver Ram Swaroop alleging that the driver of Motorcycle was driving the same rashly and negligently inasmuch as three riders were there on the Motorcycle, the driver was not wearing Helmet, did not know Motorcycle driving and was not in possession of a valid and effective driving licence. The accident occurred as the driver of Motorcycle could not keep control over the vehicle and, therefore, the application for compensation was liable to be dismissed. 5. The Tribunal framed five issues. On behalf of the claimant five witnesses were examined and on behalf of the non-claimants one witness Ram Swaroop was examined. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of both the vehicles, resulting in injuries to the occupants of Motorcycle. The contributory negligence was assessed at 75% : 25% qua owner-driver of the Tempo and driver of the Motorcycle, respectively. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of both the vehicles, resulting in injuries to the occupants of Motorcycle. The contributory negligence was assessed at 75% : 25% qua owner-driver of the Tempo and driver of the Motorcycle, respectively. While assessing the compensation in the case of Safeda Begum, it was found that her age was 38 years and on account of injuries suffered by her, she was suffering from low vision and low hearing. Based on the injury report Ex.13, the Tribunal found that she had suffered four injuries out of which three were simple, she remained hospitalized for seven days and that no certificate regarding her permanent disablement was produced, the medical bills amounting to Rs. 65,556/- were found proved and for the period spend in hospital a sum of Rs. 4,000/- was awarded, for mental and physical pain & loss of amenities and income a consolidated sum of Rs. 35,000/- was awarded. Regarding the bills for transportation, the Tribunal did not find the same reliable and awarded lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/- and in all a total compensation of Rs. 1,14,556/- was assessed, however, on account of contributory negligence of Noorsamand the amount was reduced to 75% and a sum of Rs. 85,917/- was awarded along with interest, as noticed hereinbefore. 6. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant-owner that the Tribunal has committed error in coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the Tempo and that excessive compensation has been awarded to the claimant, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant Safeda Begum while opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the owner submitted that the Tribunal committed error in reducing the compensation by 25% on account of its finding recorded on account of contributory negligence of Noorsamand. It was submitted that as the claimant was a pillion rider on the Motorcycle, the contributory negligence of driver of the Motorcycle and Tempo was composite negligence qua her and the amount awarded as compensation, therefore, could not be deducted by the Tribunal for the contributory negligence of Noorsamand, with whom she was riding on the Motorcycle. 8. It was submitted that as the claimant was a pillion rider on the Motorcycle, the contributory negligence of driver of the Motorcycle and Tempo was composite negligence qua her and the amount awarded as compensation, therefore, could not be deducted by the Tribunal for the contributory negligence of Noorsamand, with whom she was riding on the Motorcycle. 8. Further submissions were made that the Tribunal was not justified in denying the amount of transportation expenses as the bills amounting to Rs. 50,000/- were produced in this regard and, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be modified. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. So far as the negligence aspect is concerned, the Tribunal after thoroughly scrutinizing the oral and documentary evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of contributory negligence of both the drivers of Tempo as well as Motorcycle. Counsel for the appellant owner failed to point out any perversity in the said finding so as to require interference in the present appeal. 11. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, admittedly, the claimant did not produce any permanent disability certificate and only claim made was that her sight and hearing had been affected, based on the injury report the said claim made by the claimant cannot be taken as proved. Further, the claim of income of Rs. 15,000/- from agriculture and livestock operations also is not established on record and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in awarding Rs. 35,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages. 12. So far as denial of part of transportation expenses is concerned, the Tribunal rightly pointed out the discrepancies in the bills produced by the claimant, wherein, for the same distance and same type of vehicle, amount charged was apparently different and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in awarding lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards the said head and such assessment also does not call for any interference. 13. However, there is substance in the submission made by counsel for the claimant that as the present case was a case of composite negligence insofar as the claimant was concerned as she was only a pillion rider on the Motorcycle being driven by Noorsamand and for the contributory negligence of 25% of Noorsamand, compensation payable to her could not be reduced by Tribunal. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co Ltd. & Ors : (2015) 9 SCC 273 , after noticing the issue in para 3 & 17 and answering the same in para 22 of the judgment, laid down as under:- "3. 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 feasors 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. 17. The question also arises as to the remedies available to one of the joint tortfeasors from whom compensation has been recovered. When the other joint tortfeasor has not been impleaded, obviously question of negligence of non-impleaded driver could not be decided. Apportionment of composite negligence cannot be made in the absence of impleadment of joint tortfeasor. Thus, it would be open to the impleaded joint tortfeasors after making payment of compensation, so as to sue the other joint tortfeasor and to recover from him the contribution to the extent of his negligence. However, in case when both the tortfeasors are before the court/Tribunal, if evidence is sufficient, it may determine the extent of their negligence so that one joint tortfeasor can recover the amount so determined from the other joint tortfeasor in the execution proceedings, whereas the claimant has right to recover the compensation from both or any one of them." "22. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is as follows:- 22.1. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is as follows:- 22.1. 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. 22.2. In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tort feasors vis-a-vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them. 22.3. In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/extent of their negligence has been determined by the court/tribunal, in main case one joint tort feasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings. 22.4. It would not be appropriate for the court/tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tort feasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tort feasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award." 15. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khenyei (supra) finding on reduction of award by the Tribunal cannot be sustained, the same is, therefore, set aside. 16. Consequently, while the appeal filed by the appellant owner Ram Swaroop is dismissed, the appeal filed by claimant Safeda Begum is partly allowed. The reduction of compensation to the tune of 25% by the Tribunal is set aside. The claimant Safeda Begum would be entitled to entire compensation of Rs. 1,14,556/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 17. No order as to costs.