ORDER : 1. Heard and perused the material available on record. 2. By way of the instant misc. appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act of 1988’), the appellant/claimant has sought enhancement of the compensation and has sought modification of the judgment & award dated 22.03.2007 passed by the learned Judge MACT, Dungarpur, Camp Sagwara in MACT Case No.27/2005 whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim of the claimant by awarding an amount Rs.1,09,658/- @ 7.5% p.a. in his favour, however the learned Tribunal while deciding issue nos. 1 and 3 gave a finding that as the accident was a result of negligence of both the vehicles hence, both the vehicles are liable for contributory negligence, however as the driver and owner of the Tempo was not impleaded as a party to the claim petition, therefore, the learned Tribunal held that the 50% amount has to be borne by the appellant/claimant himself and liability upon respondent No.3/Insurance Company is fastened to the extent of 50%. Thus, the respondent No.3 -Insurance Company was held liable to pay 50% of Rs.1,09,658/- i.e. Rs.54,829/- @ 7.5% p.a. to the appellant-claimant. 3. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that on 01.12.2003, at around 6:00 pm, appellant/claimant was going from his village Gowari to Sagwra in Tempo No.RJ-12-P-482 with his companion, when they reached near Sagwara Village, the respondent No.1 driving the car bearing No.RJ-12-C-2051 in a rash and negligent manner, hit the Tempo and due to which, appellant/claimant received grievous injuries on his leg. 4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the joint reply and denied the averments in the claim petition and submitted that the accident took place due to negligence of the Tempo Driver however, in case the claim petition of the claimant is accepted, the respondent no.3/insurance company would be liable to pay the compensation. The respondent No.3/Insurance Company in its reply denied all averments made in the claim petition. 5. In support of their claim petition, the appellant/claimant produced one witness and exhibited documents to prove his case. No evidence was produced in defence by the responents/non-claimants. As per pleadings, issues were framed by the learned Tribunal and after hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the judgment and award dated 22.03.2007. However, being dissatisfied from this award, the appellant has preferred the instant misc. appeal. 6. No evidence was produced in defence by the responents/non-claimants. As per pleadings, issues were framed by the learned Tribunal and after hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the judgment and award dated 22.03.2007. However, being dissatisfied from this award, the appellant has preferred the instant misc. appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding meager compensation and therefore, the award deserves to be modified and the compensation deserves to be enhanced. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the injuries sustained by him in that accident is grievous in nature which resulted into 25% permanent disability. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding the claimant’s contributory negligence to the extent of 50%, when the appellant/claimant was merely a passenger in the said vehicle, Tempo. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the no amount was awarded under the head of ‘Future Prospect’ to the appellant/claimant. He further submits that the learned Tribunal seriously erred in awarding meagre compensation under the head of ‘pain and suffering’, thus under this head, enhance amount should be awarded. He also submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal towards hospitalization during the medical treatment, is slightly on a lower side and thus, the same needs to be enhanced. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant and submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the award and the same does not call for any interference. He further submits that inasmuch as this is a matter wherein the claimant has suffered injuries, the future prospects, towards loss of income has rightly not been considered by the learned Tribunal while awarding compensation. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the material available on record. 10. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal while deciding issue nos.1 and 3 has held that the accident was the result of contributory negligence of drivers of the Tempo and Car and therefore both are liable to the extent of 50% each. 10. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal while deciding issue nos.1 and 3 has held that the accident was the result of contributory negligence of drivers of the Tempo and Car and therefore both are liable to the extent of 50% each. However, as the driver and owner of the Tempo was not impleaded as a party the learned tribunal erred in holding that the claimant has to bear the 50% of the award but as the appellant/claimant was merely a passenger in the vehicle and has suffered injury due to the negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles, thus it was not a case for contributory negligence but of composite negligence. This Court finds that in the case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited reported in 2015(9) SCC 273 the Hon’ble Apex Court has made a distinction between contributory negligence and composite negligence and in the case of the latter, the claimant is at liberty to sue both or any of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire amount of compensation as the liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several and apportionment of compensation between the two tort feasors vis-a-vis the claimant is not permissible. The relevant paragraph of the judgment are as under:- “14. 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; whereas 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. This Court in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan & Ors. [ 2008 (3) SCC 748 ] has held that in case of contributory negligence, 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. It is only in the case of contributory negligence that the injured himself has contributed by his negligence in the accident. 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. xxx 18. It is only in the case of contributory negligence that the injured himself has contributed by his negligence in the accident. 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. xxx 18. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is as follows : (i) 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. (ii) 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. xxx” This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has erred in apportioning the liability of both the vehicles vis-a-vis compensation payable to the appellant/claimant and also in holding that the rest of the 50% of the amount that was payable by the driver and owner of the Tempo has to be borne by the appellant/claimant as the driver and owner of the Tempo has not been made a party to the claim petition. The appellant/claimant was merely a passenger of the vehicle(Tempo) and in no manner it can be held that on account of his negligence as well the accident took place. The instant case falls in the category of composite negligence as the appellant/claimant, who has suffered injuries, has not contributed to the accident rather it is a contributory negligence of the two drivers of the vehicles. Also, the reason assigned by the learned tribunal that in the absene of the driver and owner of the tempo being impleaded in the claim petition the appellant/claimant is liable to bear 50% of the awarded compensation is also not sustainable as the claimant is entitled to sue both the drivers/joint tort feasors or any one of them in the case of composite negligence. Thus, the award dated 22.03.2007 passed by the learned tribunal is modified and the liability of compensation is fastened to the respondent no. 3/insurance company. Another contention has been raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/claimant regarding enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned tribunal. Thus, the award dated 22.03.2007 passed by the learned tribunal is modified and the liability of compensation is fastened to the respondent no. 3/insurance company. Another contention has been raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/claimant regarding enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned tribunal. Thus, looking to the factual matrix of the case and applying the ratio of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. : 2017 16 SCC 680 , Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation : AIR 2009 SC 3104 along with Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar : AIR 2020 SC 4424 , the instant misc. appeal is partly allowed and the award passed by the learned MACT, Dungarpur, Camp Sagwara in MACT Case No.27/2005 stands modified to the extent of awarding Future Prospect for loss of income, compensation towards pain and suffering and hospitalization. After arriving at the conclusion that the judgment and award dated 22.03.2007 deserves to be modified and enhanced, both the counsel are directed to submit the calculation. Therefore, in view of the discussion in the above paragraphs the amount of compensation that needs to be awarded is as under:- Yearly Income assessed by the Tribunal Rs.24,000/- Applying future prospects @ 25% i.e. 24,000+25% of 24,000 Rs.30,000/- Applying the multiplier on the said income and taking into consideration 24% permanent disability suffered by the claimant (30,000X13X24%) (A) Rs.93,600/- (Add) Medical Bills (B) Rs.19,178/- (Add) Traveling expenses (C) Rs.2,000/- (Add) Hospitalization (D) Rs.7200/- (Add) Attendant charges as awarded by Tribunal (E) Rs.3600/- Pain and suffering (17.50% of the total award excluding medical bills), i.e. (F) Rs.18,620/- TOTAL (A+B+C+D+E+F) Rs.1,44,198/- Amount awarded by the learned Tribunal after deducting 50% on account of contributory negligence (50% of 1,09,658) Rs.54,829/- Enhanced amount Rs.89,369/- 11. Thus, the appellant/claimant is held entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.89,369/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a.(same as awarded by the learned tribunal) on the enhanced compensation with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition. The respondent no. 3/insurance company is directed to pay the said amount to the claimant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 12. The respondent no. 3/insurance company is directed to pay the said amount to the claimant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 12. The amount, if any, already paid by the respondent no.3/ Insurance Company, shall be adjusted towards the amount finally awarded by this Court. Also, the respondent no. 3/insurance company is at liberty to recover 50% of the amount of compensation from the owner and driver of the tempo. 13. No order as to costs. 14. Record be returned to the Tribunal forthwith.