JUDGMENT : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. While deciding the liability of joint tort feasors and awarding compensation against the claim of a third party, whether the Court is required to pronounce the extent of their inter se liability is the question which we are engaged in this appeal. 2. The matrix of the case is thus: (a) On 23.10.2007 at about 9.30 p.m. the deceased while travelling in a car bearing No.AP28AT8369 along with others from Hyderabad towards Nagarjunasagar, died on the way at Yacharam, when the car hit the rear portion of a lorry bearing No.AP28W2040 stationed across the road without switching on parking lamps and indicators. The claimants who are the wife, minor sons and parents of the deceased filed M.V.O.P.No.779 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman, MACT – cum-District Judge, Guntur against respondents 1 and 2 who are the owner and insurer of the offending lorry and respondents 3 and 4 who are the owner and insurer of the offending car and claimed Rs.35.00 lakhs as compensation under several heads. (b) While respondents 1 and 3 who are the owners of respective vehicles remained ex parte, respondents 2 and 4, the insurance companies, contested the O.P. (c) The contention of the 2nd respondent inter alia is that the lorry driver stopped his vehicle on the road margin due to break down but not across the road on the middle point. It was the car driver who drove the vehicle at high speed and dashed behind the lorry and therefore, the owner and insurer of the lorry are not answerable to the claim. (d) The 4th respondent contended that the lorry driver was solely responsible for the accident for having stationed the lorry on the middle of the road without putting on parking lights and placing indicators. The police filed charge sheet against the lorry driver and as such respondents 1 and 2 alone are liable. (e) Be that it may, while fixing the liability in the accident, the lower Tribunal did not give much importance to Ex.A.3-scene observation report and Ex.A.4-rough sketch which depict that the lorry due to break down was parked on the middle of the road in east-west direction without putting the parking lights on. (e) Be that it may, while fixing the liability in the accident, the lower Tribunal did not give much importance to Ex.A.3-scene observation report and Ex.A.4-rough sketch which depict that the lorry due to break down was parked on the middle of the road in east-west direction without putting the parking lights on. The Tribunal observed that it was improbable for the lorry driver to park the vehicle across the road leaving no space for other vehicles to pass through as generally one would park the vehicle by the side of the road that too it being a high-way. The Tribunal thus came to conclusion that due to the hitting by the car from the backside, the lorry must have changed its position and direction. It further observed that since the lorry was stationed by the side of the road, it would be visible to the driver of the scorpio car from a distance through the headlights of the car and thereby he had an opportunity to see the lorry parked on the road side from a distance and accordingly could have regulated the speed of his vehicle. He did not do so and hit back the lorry which speaks volumes about the negligence of the car driver. Then, coming to the lorry driver, the Tribunal held that he ought to have kept blinkers of the lorry on since it was broke down on a high-way and should have also arranged stone fencing around the lorry but he did not do so and negligently left the lorry and so he also contributed to the accident. With these observations, the lower Tribunal held that there was a composite negligence of the drivers of both vehicles in the accident. (f) Then, basing on the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.28,81,000/-. The apportionment of liability is concerned, the Tribunal held that respondents 1 and 2 who are the owner and insurer of the lorry and respondent No.3 who is the owner of the scorpio car are liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No.4 who is the insurer of the car is concerned, having regard to the terms of the policy, the Tribunal restricted its liability to Rs.1,00,000/-only. Respondent No.4 who is the insurer of the car is concerned, having regard to the terms of the policy, the Tribunal restricted its liability to Rs.1,00,000/-only. In the above process, the lower Tribunal did not apportion the percentage of fault in the accident between the two drivers relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in T.O.Anthony Vs. Karvaran, MANU/SC/7181/2008=208 (3) SCC 748 wherein it was held thus: “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 wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrong doers. In such a case, each wrong doer, 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 wrong doer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong doer separately (emphasis supplied). 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 of 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 stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence.” Hence the appeal by the 2nd respondent, Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant Smt. A. Jayanthi and learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 Sri R. Ramabrahmma. Respondent No.7 served, no representation. Respondents 6 and 8 are not served. 4. The main thrust of argument of Smt. A. Jayanthi is that the lower Tribunal having observed that the lorry was parked by the side of the road but not across the road, ought to have held that the lorry driver was absolutely not at fault in the accident and the car driver alone was responsible. 4. The main thrust of argument of Smt. A. Jayanthi is that the lower Tribunal having observed that the lorry was parked by the side of the road but not across the road, ought to have held that the lorry driver was absolutely not at fault in the accident and the car driver alone was responsible. However, the Tribunal erroneously held that the accident was occurred due to the composite negligence of lorry driver also. Learned counsel vehemently argued that when it is admitted that the lorry was stationed by the side of the road, assuming that its driver did not put on the parking lights and placed parking stones around the vehicle, by that count, it cannot be said that he too was responsible for the accident, for, the Tribunal has decisively held that the lorry was visible to the driver of the car from a distance through the headlights of the car and thereby he had a reasonable opportunity to see the roadside parked lorry and accordingly regulate the speed of the vehicle and that he did not do so but hit back the lorry speaks volumes about the negligence of the car driver. She thus at first instance argued to exonerate the lorry from its liability by allowing the appeal. Alternatively, learned counsel submitted that even assuming that the lorry driver too was at fault, having regard to the fact that the only allegation against him was that he did not put on the parking lights and place the indicators, the Tribunal ought to have specified the extent of liability of each driver vividly to enable the owner and insurer of the lorry to claim balance part of compensation from the owner and insurer of other vehicle. She also argued on the correctness of compensation but not with much teeth. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 Sri Ramabrahmma would argue that in fact the compensation awarded was on a lower side and therefore, the same may not be disturbed in the appeal. 6. The points for consideration are: 1) Whether the finding of the lower Tribunal regarding the composite negligence of drivers of both vehicles is sustainable? (2) Whether the apportionment of inter se liability between the drivers of two vehicles is required to be made? 7. POINT No.1: We gave our anxious consideration to the facts, evidence and law. 6. The points for consideration are: 1) Whether the finding of the lower Tribunal regarding the composite negligence of drivers of both vehicles is sustainable? (2) Whether the apportionment of inter se liability between the drivers of two vehicles is required to be made? 7. POINT No.1: We gave our anxious consideration to the facts, evidence and law. It must be noted that the appellant in this case is the insurer of one of the two vehicles involved in the accident i.e., the lorry bearing No.AP28W2040. The appellant has not disputed with most of the observations and findings of the Tribunal regarding the manner of occurrence of the accident. Having accepted most of the observations and findings, however, learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that the observation that the car driver in spite of having opportunity to see the parked lorry and regulate his speed but did not do so and hit the lorry itself is indicative that the entire fault in the accident rests with the car driver. We are unable to countenance this argument. It is true that the Tribunal made the above observations only in the process of exposing the part of negligence on the part of the car driver. That does not mean that the entire fault lies with him. Even assuming that the lorry driver parked the lorry by the side of the road, still he did not put on the blinkers and place stone fencing around the stationed lorry indicating that the vehicle was broke down in the night time on the high-way road. Therefore, the lorry driver cannot absolve himself of his fault in the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the accident was occurred due to the composite negligence of both the drivers. 8. POINT No.2: Coming to the aspect of apportionment of inter se liability, as stated supra, relying upon the decision in T.O.Anthony’s case (supra), the lower Tribunal did not apportion the extent of inter se liability between the two vehicles. It only pronounced the joint and several liability of respondents 1 to 3 in the O.P. to full extent and of respondent No.4 to an extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. It only pronounced the joint and several liability of respondents 1 to 3 in the O.P. to full extent and of respondent No.4 to an extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. Now, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the liability between the two vehicles may be demarcated to facilitate the appellant to recover their part from respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the O.P. Regarding such apportionment, we have a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Khenyei Vs. New India Assuance Co. Ltd., MANU/SC/0582/2015 : (2015) 9 SCC 273 : 2015 ACJ 1441 wherein it was held thus: “18. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxx xxxx xxxxxx xxxx What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is as follows: (i) In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tort feasors vis-à-vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them. (ii) In case all the joint 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. (iii) It would not be appropriate for the court/tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drives 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.” The Guideline Number (iii) is germane for us. Since in the instant case both the tort feasors are impleaded, the apportionment of inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers is essential. Since in the instant case both the tort feasors are impleaded, the apportionment of inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers is essential. Having regard to the facts and evidence, we hold that the major part of the fault rests with the lorry driver as the primary burden lies on him to put on the parking lights and place the stones and other indicators around the lorry as his vehicle was broke down in the night time that too on high-way road. Though the drivers of ongoing vehicles can able to see the parked vehicle from a distance through the focus of the lights of their respective vehicles, however in the absence of indicator lamps and parking stones it would be difficult for them to understand whether the lorry was simply parked or moving at a slow speed so as to adjust the speed of their vehicles to avoid hitting. So considering these facts and circumstances, we fix the liability of the lorry driver at 75% and the car driver at 25%. This fixation is only an inter se liability and will not affect the right of the claimants to recover compensation from the tort feasors jointly and severally. The appellant insurance company shall pay the entire compensation amount to the claimants and recover 25% of the same from the owner of the car and his insurer. The liability of the insurer is only to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. This point is answered accordingly. 9. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed holding that the inter se liability in the accident between the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP28W2040 and car bearing No. AP28AT8369 is 75:25 and the appellant insurance company shall pay the entire compensation to the claimants and recover 25% of the same from the owner and insurer of the car wherein the liability of the insurer of the car is only to an extent of Rs.1,00,000/-, by executing this order as decree. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.