JUDGMENT : GITA GOPI, J. 1. Both the appeals have been jointly heard, since they arise out of a common judgment in MACP Nos. 188 of 2004 and 190 of 2004 delivered on 08.04.2008 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Amreli. 2. Though served, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. 3. The Insurance Company challenges the judgment inter-alia on the ground that the judgment and award is contrary to law and erroneous, and when the Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that the appellant insured driver was not negligent for causing the accident in question, and has not been found as a tortfeasor, the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay the compensation, and merely considering claimants being passengers travelling in the insured rickshaw, the Tribunal has laid down joint and several liability of all the opponents. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Maulik Shelat submitted that the Tribunal has very categorically answered the issue no. 1, which was raised, as to whether claimants prove that the drivers of passenger Rickshaw No. GJ-14-T-2337 and Bullet Motorcycle No. GJ-4-AA-5050 involved in the accident, were rash and negligent in driving their respective motor vehicles. Referring to the findings, Advocate Mr. Shelat submitted that answering the issue in the finding, the Tribunal has observed that the driver of Utility Jeep No. GJ-14-T-3857 is rash and negligent in driving the said jeep. Mr. Shelat stated that on raised issue, the Tribunal, on considerable evaluation of evidence, has given the finding. Mr. Shelat submitted that in MACP No. 188 of 2004 and in MACP No. 190 of 2004, the issue was laid down on the claimants to prove that the drivers of passenger Rickshaw No. GJ-14-T-2337 and Utility Jeep No. GJ-14-T-3857 involved in the accident were rash and negligent in driving the respective motor vehicles. 4.1 Advocate Mr. Shelat submits that in both the matters on raising the specific issue, the Tribunal has observed in the finding that the driver of Utility Jeep No. GJ-14-T-3857 was rash and negligent in driving the said jeep. 4.2 Advocate Mr. Shelat submitted that in the accident, one of the claimant had also shown the involvement of a Bullet Motorcycle No. GJ-4-AA-5050, as three vehicles were involved. The specific observation was attributing the negligence to the Utility Jeep No. GJ-14-T-3857. Mr. 4.2 Advocate Mr. Shelat submitted that in the accident, one of the claimant had also shown the involvement of a Bullet Motorcycle No. GJ-4-AA-5050, as three vehicles were involved. The specific observation was attributing the negligence to the Utility Jeep No. GJ-14-T-3857. Mr. Shelat submitted that in spite of the finding and having observed that the driver of jeep had not stepped into the witness box to revert the submission of the claimants considering the FIR, had come to an opinion that the accident had occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the utility jeep; in spite of that in the operative part of the order, the opponents were made jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. 4.3 Advocate Mr. Shelat submitted that once in a finding the negligence have been concluded of one of the vehicle driver, then there could not be any liability to be paid by the driver/owner of the other vehicle, and, thereby no vicarious liability can be extended to the Insurance Company, thus, submitted that since it is not a case of any composite negligence, the appeal has been raised for modification of the order. 5. The facts were noted by the Tribunal that the deceased Ramjibhai Dayabhai Pethani of MACP No. 188 of 2004 and injured Vithalbhai Bhimjibhai Radadia were travelling in passenger Rickshaw No. GJ-14-T-2337. When the rickshaw was on Badhada Road near Omgiri Ashram, the driver of the Utility Jeep No. GJ-14-T-3857 came driving the jeep from the rear side of the rickshaw in rash and negligent manner and in excessive speed, endangering the human life, dashed the jeep at the rear side of the rickshaw. As a result, the rickshaw fell down into the ditch, causing death and injury, as referred above. 6. While dealing with the evidence, the Tribunal has noted that the FIR produced at Exh.56 shows that it was lodged against the driver of Utility Jeep No. GJ-14-T-3857. The driver of the said jeep had not stepped into the witness box to revert the case of the claimants, and on perusal of the FIR, it was noted that the driver of the utility jeep was driving it, in excessive speed, and, at first the jeep dashed with the rickshaw and then with bullet motorcycle, hence, concluded to consider the sole negligence of the driver of the utility jeep. Merely by observing that the deceased and injured were passengers in the passenger rickshaw, the Tribunal has held opponents jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 6.1 This observation of the Tribunal becomes erroneous, since on raising the issue, the Tribunal has very categorically dealt with the negligence to attribute it to the driver of Utility Jeep No. GJ-14-T-3857, observing the driver to be rash and negligent in his driving. The sole negligence of the jeep driver has been noted. In spite of due consideration of the evidence, the learned Tribunal merely noting the injured and deceased to be the passengers in the passenger rickshaw and considering them as third parties had ordered all the opponents to jointly and severally pay the compensation amount. 7. It is to be noticed that it is not a case of any contributory negligence, where the rickshaw driver has been considered as negligent in his driving. The facts clearly suggest that utility jeep had dashed the rickshaw at the rear side and because of that it had fallen down in a ditch, and since it is not a case of any contributory negligence, or a case of any composite negligence, the Tribunal ought not to have ordered all the opponents to pay the compensation amount. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Maulik Shelat has rightly relied upon the judgment in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Giraben Dilipbhai Patel and Others, 2017 (1) GLR 463 , where the Division Bench of this Court has explained the concept in relation to composite negligence by referring to the judgment of Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (2015) 9 SCC 273 , has observed in connection with the Tribunal’s observation, where it was a case of accident between Maruti Car and a Truck. The Division Bench has observed as under: “7.1. Therefore, the question of composite negligence would arise only in a case where there is negligence on the part of two or more persons and a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers. However, in a case where a person who is not held negligence at all and therefore he cannot be said to be wrongdoers, in that case, the aforesaid principle of composite negligence and therefore, the claimants can recover the amount of compensation from such a person would not arise. However, in a case where a person who is not held negligence at all and therefore he cannot be said to be wrongdoers, in that case, the aforesaid principle of composite negligence and therefore, the claimants can recover the amount of compensation from such a person would not arise. On fair reading of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which are relied upon by the learned advocate for the original claimants, we are of the opinion that only in a case where there is negligence (whatever may be percentage) on the part of two or more persons and/or where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, in such case, each wrongdoer 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 and in such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately. In the aforesaid cases before the Hon'ble Supreme Court two or more persons were held negligent and therefore, it is held that so far as third party are concerned (other than driver of the vehicle who is held negligent to some extent) the claimants (third party) can recover from any of the wrongdoers, as so far as they are concerned, it would be composite negligence. In the present case as held and observed herein above, the driver of the truck cannot be said to be negligent at all and therefore, as such he cannot be said to be wrongdoer and/or tortfeasor and therefore, the question with respect to composite negligent shall not arise and therefore, the claimants of MACP Nos. 452 of 2003 to 454 of 2003 can not recover any amount of compensation from the appellant being insurer/Insurance Company of the Truck.” 8.1 In case of Leelaben Kalidas Waghela vs. Rameshbhai Kalidas Makwana and Others, rendered by this High Court by common order dated 06.03.2014 in First Appeal No. 162 of 2014 with First Appeal No. 163 of 2014, where the sole negligence of one vehicle was concluded. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Truck driver was held to be solely responsible for the accident in question, and the Court found that in a case when there is no evidence with regard to composite negligence, there would be no question of holding the owner and the driver of the other vehicle to be jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. It has been noted in the said judgment, as under: “........In proceedings under section 166 of the Act, unless the driver of a vehicle is found to be negligent, the question of imposing any liability for payment of compensation would not arise. In the present case, the Tribunal having found that it is only the driver of the truck who is liable and this is not a case of composite negligence, has rightly exonerated the respondents No. 3 and 4 from the liability of payment of compensation under section 166 of the Act.” 9. Thus, in view of the judgment of Giraben Dilipbhai Patel (supra) and Leelaben Kalidas Waghela (supra) and in view of the proposition of law applicable to the facts of the present case, when the utility jeep has been considered solely liable, then the order directing the claimants to recover the amount jointly and severally from all the opponents would be on a wrong footing, since there would not be a case of any contributory negligence, where a single vehicle has been attributed with sole negligence in the accident, where two of the vehicles were involved. Merely because the deceased and the injured were travelling in the passenger rickshaw without any negligence attributed to the rickshaw driver, it would not bring the case under the concept of composite negligence making the claimants entitle for recovery of the amount from any of the vehicles. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are disposed of as allowed. 10.1 The operative order dated 08.04.2008 in MACP Nos. 188 of 2004 and 190 of 2004 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Amreli stands modified to the extant that the owner of the Utility Jeep No. GJ-14-T-3857 to pay the awarded amount to the claimants in both the claim petitions. The operative order be modified accordingly. Rest of the order of the impugned judgment would stand as it is. 188 of 2004 and 190 of 2004 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Amreli stands modified to the extant that the owner of the Utility Jeep No. GJ-14-T-3857 to pay the awarded amount to the claimants in both the claim petitions. The operative order be modified accordingly. Rest of the order of the impugned judgment would stand as it is. 10.2 Since it is submitted that total amount has been paid by the appellant, let all the money, which is before the Tribunal in FDR be returned back to the appellant Insurance Company with accrued interest, and, if any amount is withdrawn by the claimants, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the same from the owner of the Utility Jeep No. GJ-14-T-3857, original opponent no. 3, by way of execution proceeding. 11. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, if received.