JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the named appellant-New India Insurance Company Limited challenging the award passed by presiding Officer Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Motor Accident Claim Case No.144 of 2009, whereby and whereunder the claim case instituted by the claimants was allowed, granting compensation amount to the tune of Rs.13,05,200/-along with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of award till its realization. 3. Upon service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned award only on ground that the manner of occurrence in this case is very peculiar in the sense that the deceased namely Raj Kumar Prajapati was driver of a Mini Tata Truck 407 bearing Reg. No.JH-01S-8161, while driving the vehicle very rashly and negligently dashed the another stationary vehicle and as he applied the brake suddenly, meanwhile, another truck bearing Reg. No.BR-14G-1981 could not be controlled and dashed the said Mini Tata Truck 407 from behind and due to this accident, the driver of the Mini Tata Truck 407 died during on the spot and the cleaner of the said vehicle was injured and send for treatment to RIMS, Ranchi. 5. It is further submitted that it is a purely a case of contributory negligence but the learned Tribunal has framed issue No.4 regarding the composite negligence and failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record on this issue by ascertaining the degree and perusal of the negligence on the part of both the derivers of Mini Truck and Truck bearing Reg. Nos.JH-01S-8161 and BR-14G-1981 respectively. 6. Learned Tribunal further failed to appreciate while considering application filed by the complainants under section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 that the liability of both insurers was in proportion to the ration of 50 % each and accordingly 25,000/-was paid to each insurer of the vehicles to the claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further pointed out that there are vital differences between contributory negligence and composite negligence. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further pointed out that there are vital differences between contributory negligence and composite negligence. It is settled law that in the case of composite negligence, the liability may be saddled on the shoulder of any one of the joint tortfeasor but in case of contributory negligence the person claiming compensation who contributes in the happening of the accident., the amount of compensation has to be reduced to the extent and percentage of negligence of the deceased or injured himself. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the case in proper prospective and in rightful manner and without framing any issue as regards contributory negligence of the deceased, the Tribunal has saddled the appellant company with liability to pay entire amount of compensation along with interest which has been paid to the claimants as per direction of this Hon’ble High Court subject to result of this appeal. Therefore, this appeal is fit to be allowed or the matter may be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal for framing issue regarding contributory negligence of the deceased himself in the happening of the accident and its extent and percentage so that the appellant should not be prejudiced. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the above arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and submitted that learned Tribunal has very wisely and aptly apprised and appreciated the entire aspects of the case and arrived at right conclusion. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award calling for any interference by way of this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. 9. The matter herein is confined to the extend of inter-se liability of both the drivers of the vehicles involved in this case for the purpose of quantifying the ratio of negligence and attributability of compensation amount in proportionate manner. It appears that learned Tribunal in connection with this case has settled the relevant issue Nos.3 and 4 which reads as under:- (3) whether the death of the deceased namely Raj Kumar Prajapati, resulted to the alleged vehicular accident caused due to driving the offending vehicle truck bearing Reg. No. BR-14G-8161 rashly and negligently? (4) whether it is a case of composite negligence involving the offending truck bearing Reg. No.BR-14G-1981 and mini truck bearing Reg. No. JH-01S-8161 ,if yes, what extent? 10. No. BR-14G-8161 rashly and negligently? (4) whether it is a case of composite negligence involving the offending truck bearing Reg. No.BR-14G-1981 and mini truck bearing Reg. No. JH-01S-8161 ,if yes, what extent? 10. While discharging the above two issues, learned Tribunal has considered the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced in this case and observed that from perusal of document Exts. 1 (Certified Copy of FIR of Bundu P.S. Case No.05/09 dated 07.01.2009 instituted against both the drivers mini truck bearing Reg. No. JH-01S-8161 and truck bearing Reg. No.BR-14G-1981 respectively for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code) and Ext.2 is (certified copy of charge-sheet) of the above police case, it appears that the FIR was lodged against the drivers of both the vehicles for causing the alleged accident but as per the contents of the fardbayan of informant namely Sukhram Lohra, the chaukidar who is an eye-witness of the accident and was on duty has stated that the driver of mini truck namely Raj Kumar Prajapati has dashed again a stationary truck beside the road till then he was alive but thereafter the offending truck bearing Reg. No. BR-14G-1981 being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver dashed the mini truck from behind resulting in the death of the driver of the mini truck on the spot. Therefore, in the circumstances, the opportunity to avoid the alleged accident was available only to the charge-sheeted driver, namely Chaitanya Oraon but he was driving the said truck rashly and negligently and could not control the truck and dashed against another truck driven by the deceased causing death of the driver. As such, learned Tribunal arrived at conclusion that it is not a case of composite negligence involving the vehicle mini truck bearing Reg. No.JH-01S-8161 and death of the deceased, namely, Raj Kumar Prajapati was resulted to the alleged vehicular accident caused due to driving the offending vehicle bearing Reg. No.BR-14G-1981 rashly and negligently only and its owner/insurer is solely liable for causing death of the deceased. Accordingly both the issues were decided in favour of the applicants and against the opposite parties. 11. No.JH-01S-8161 and death of the deceased, namely, Raj Kumar Prajapati was resulted to the alleged vehicular accident caused due to driving the offending vehicle bearing Reg. No.BR-14G-1981 rashly and negligently only and its owner/insurer is solely liable for causing death of the deceased. Accordingly both the issues were decided in favour of the applicants and against the opposite parties. 11. Since in this appeal the subject matter of dispute as raised by the appellant is confined to the decision of the question as to whether this case pertains to be a case of contributory negligence or composite negligence, if so what is the proportion of negligence on the part of deceased contributing the happening of the accident. 12. “The difference between contributing negligence and composite negligence has been propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.O. Anthony vs. Karvarnan and Ors. reported in (2008) 3 SCC 748 , in this case the appellant was a driver working with Kerla State Road Transport Corporation. On the date of accident, he was driving Kerla SRTC Bus(KL 15/1074) from Palakkad to Trichur. When his bus was near Kannannor a private bus (KL 9A 3456) driven by the first respondent came from the opposite direction and there was a head collision as a result the appellant sustained injuries including fracture of right femur. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of drivers of both vehicles and it could not be said that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the first respondent. The Tribunal further held that as the accident occurred due to contributory and composite negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles, the liability should be fifty-fifty(that is 50% each). Accordingly, the award amount was directed to satisfy the by both the insurance companies to the extent of 50%. In an appeal, the High Court did not disturb the finding regarding negligence rather enhance the compensation amount while discussing the judgment of Tribunal as well as High Court regarding apportionment of negligence to be 50:50 as it was a case of composite negligence. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Tribunal fell into a common error by several Tribunals, in proceedings on the assumption that composite negligence and contributory negligence are the same. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Tribunal fell into a common error by several Tribunals, in proceedings on the assumption that composite negligence and contributory negligence are the same. In an accident involving two or more vehicles, where a third party(other than the drivers and/or owners of the vehicles involved) claims damaged for loss or injuries,, it is said that compensation is payable in respect of the composite negligence of the drivers of those vehicles. But in respect of such an accident, if the claim by one of the drivers himself for personal injuries, or by the legal heirs of one of the drivers for loss on account of his death, or by the owner of one of the vehicles in respect of damages to his vehicle, then the issue that arises is not about the composite negligence of all the drivers , but about the contributory negligence of the driver concerned. 13. It was further held that “composite negligence” refers to the negligence on the part of the negligence on the part of the two or more person. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the inured for payment of the entire damages and the inured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the inured need not establish the extend of responsibility of each wrongdoers separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers inury, 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 on the part of the inured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the inured 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 stand reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. Where the inured 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 stand reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. Therefore, when two vehicles are involved in an accident, and one of the drivers claims compensation from the other driver alleging negligence, and the other driver denies negligence or claims that the inured claimant himself was negligent, then it becomes necessary to consider whether the inured claimant was negligent and if so, whether he was solely or partly responsible for the accident and the extent of his responsibility, that is, his contributory negligence. Therefore where the inured is himself partly liable, the principle of “composite negligence” will not apply nor can there be an automatic inference that the negligence was 50:50 as has been assumed in this case. The Tribunal ought to have examined the extent of contributory negligence of the appellant and thereby avoided confusion between composite negligence and contributory negligence. 14. Now coming back to the fact of this case, it is apparent from the FRI Ext.1that in the evening on 06.01.2009, the accident took place between a truck and sumo vehicle, due to which the road was blocked. It is alleged by the informant Sukh Ram Lohra who was posted at the place of occurrence as Chawkidar that at about one hour in the night the mini truck bearing Reg. No.JH-01S-8161 being driven by its driver very rashly and negligently dashed in the stationary truck from behind due to which the mini truck damaged badly and in the meantime, another truck bearing Reg. No.BR-14G-1981 being driven by its driver very rashly and negligently dashed from behind to the mini truck as a result of which the driver, namely, Raj Kumar Prajapati died on spot and cleaner who also injured sent to RIMS, Ranchi for treatment. It is alleged by the informant that accident took place due to rashly and negligently driving of their respective vehicles. It further appears that after investigation of the police case vide Bundu P.S. Case No.05 of 2009 dated 07.01.2009 registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC, charge-sheet was submitted against the driver of the truck bearing Reg. No.BR-14G-1981 namely Chaitanya Oraon. It further appears that after investigation of the police case vide Bundu P.S. Case No.05 of 2009 dated 07.01.2009 registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC, charge-sheet was submitted against the driver of the truck bearing Reg. No.BR-14G-1981 namely Chaitanya Oraon. Although, it was found that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of both vehicles. Since, the drivers of the mini truck died, charge-sheet was submitted only against the driver, namely Chaitayana Oraon. 15. It further transpires that on behalf of the claimants, four witnesses were examined A.W. 1 Damyanti Devi, wife of the deceased driver of mini truck, who is not an eyewitness of the occurrence, although she has stated that there was no fault on the part of her husband while driving the said mini truck but admittedly she is not eyewitness and has no personal knowledge about the happening of the accident. A.W.2 Ajay Kumar, who is also not an eye-witness of the accident and he has admitted in cross-examination that the affidavit was prepared not on his dictation and what it contains, he does not know. A.W. 3 Lakhan Soni also happens to be not eye-witness of the occurrence, stated in his examination-in-chief that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck bearing Reg. No.BR-14G-1981 which dashed the mini truck from behind causing death of the driver. A.W. 4 the mother of the deceased, she is also not eye-witness of the occurrence. 16. It appears that although learned Tribunal while discussing oral testimony of the witnesses has recorded finding that none of the witnesses are eye-witness of the occurrence and based his judgment on issue Nos.3 and 4 only on the basis of FIR and charge-sheet which have been exhibited in this case without objection, therefore, the contents of the FIR has been admitted by both parties which can not be deviated at the present stage of the case. 17. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S.B. Sinha & Premlata Shukla & Ors. reported in (2007) 13 SCC 476 wherein the accident took place while a tempo trax collided with a truck and FIR was lodge under Section 304A of IPC against the driver of the truck. However, the case was closed as the said truck could not be traced. Ltd. v. S.B. Sinha & Premlata Shukla & Ors. reported in (2007) 13 SCC 476 wherein the accident took place while a tempo trax collided with a truck and FIR was lodge under Section 304A of IPC against the driver of the truck. However, the case was closed as the said truck could not be traced. The claim petition against the driver, owner and insurance company with which the tempo trax was insured was dismissed by the Tribunal holding that the driver of temp trax was not driving rashly and negligently. The appeal was allowed by the High Court opining that the FIR has been legally not proved, the driver of the tempo trax should be held guilty of driving rashly and negligently. It was held that once a part of contents of documents is admitted in evidence, party bringing same on record can not be permitted to turn around and contend that other contents contained in rest part thereof had not been proved. Both parties have relied on FIR which was marked as Ext. as both parties intended to rely upon the FIR. Once a part of FIR was relied upon by the parties, Tribunal could not be said to have committed any illegality in relying upon other part, irrespective of contents of document being proved or not. If contents had been proved, question of reliance thereupon only upon a part thereof not upon rest, on technical ground that the same had not been proved in accordance with law, would not arise. 18. In the instant case the contents of FIR and charge-sheet, which is an admitted document by both parties clearly indicates that the driver of mini truck (since deceased) driving the vehicle very rashly and negligently dashed in another stationary vehicle. The circumstances are also evident that at the particular time, it was one hour in night and the road was blocked due to another accident happening in the evening on the same day. 19. Similarly, another truck being driven by Chaintany Oraon was also being driven very rashly and negligently had an opportunity to avert the accident but could not control the vehicle and dashed in the mini truck of the deceased from behind. 19. Similarly, another truck being driven by Chaintany Oraon was also being driven very rashly and negligently had an opportunity to avert the accident but could not control the vehicle and dashed in the mini truck of the deceased from behind. Here in this case, death is not of any passenger or any other third party but all the drivers itself driving vehicle very rashly and negligently, therefore, the case is squarely covered with principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.O. Anthony(Supra) as it is case of contributory negligence of both drivers of the respective vehicles and not the case of composite negligence as decided by the learned Tribunal. 20. In case of contributory negligence, the extent of liability of joint tortfeasor requires to be determined so that the extent of contribution in negligence may be decided and to that extent amount of compensation may be reduced. The manner of accident as disclosed in the FIR clearly shows that the accident took place due to negligence of both drivers in equal ratio as at first the driver of mini truck negligently driving the vehicle dashed in the stationary truck and another truck bearing Reg. No.BR-14G-1981 coming from behind in rash and negligent manner which had an opportunity to avert the accident could not control his vehicle and dashed in the mini truck. In the given circumstances, the principle of res epsa loquitur is applicable which means the circumstances of the case are self-explanatory about the happening of the accident and negligence of both the drivers. 21. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I am of firmed view that learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record while deciding the issue Nos.3 and 4 which is hereby set aside and it is held that it is a case of contributory negligence and the drivers of both vehicles were negligent in driving the vehicles in equal ratio i.e. 50:50. 22. It appears from the record that the appellant has satisfied the total award amount along with interest to the claimant which is found liable for contributory negligence of its driver to the extent of 50%. 22. It appears from the record that the appellant has satisfied the total award amount along with interest to the claimant which is found liable for contributory negligence of its driver to the extent of 50%. Therefore, 50% of the total amount of award along with interest is to be paid by respondent No.4 National Insurance Company Limited because no violation of terms and conditions of policy has been proved in this case. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above and the respondent No.4 is directed to contribute to the appellant 50% of the awarded amount along with interest paid by the appellant to the claimants and comply with this order within six weeks from the date of this order. 24. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. 25. Statutory amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal shall be return to the appellant. 26. Let the copy of this order along with LCR be sent back to the concerned court. 27. Pending I.As., if any, are disposed of accordingly.