JUDGMENT : Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. In view of the office note dated 11.08.2025, notices are declared to be validly served upon Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5. Respondent No.3 has died during pendency of the instant Misc. Appeal and the other legal heirs are already on record. Further, Respondent Nos.4 and 6 have appeared through the counsel by filing vakalatnama. 2. The appellant- Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment and Award of compensation passed under Section 166 of the M. V. Act by learned District Judge-IV-cum-MACT, Dhanbad, in T (M.V.) Case No.22 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the appellant- The New India Assurance Company Ltd. has been held to be liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,95,500/-to the claimants for the death of Nepal Mandal who died on 27.05.2006 in a Motor vehicle accident involving Truck bearing Registration No.BPW 6313 and the truck bearing Registration No.WGA 6893. 3. Learned Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that the accident took place due to wrong parking of the Truck bearing Registration No.BPW 6313 which was under the insurance cover of appellant- Insurance Company. 4. The impugned Award of compensation is under-challenge on the ground that the finding with respect to Issue No.III wherein only the driver of the Truck bearing Registration No.BPW 6313 has been held to be liable is not supported by any evidence. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that FIR (Ext.1) was recorded against the driver of both the aforesaid vehicles and after investigation, charge-sheet was also submitted against the driver of both the aforesaid vehicles. 6. It is argued that since the Truck bearing Registration No.WGA 6893 was not insured at the relevant time, therefore, the learned Tribunal shifted the complete liability upon the appellant- The New India Assurance Company Ltd. 7. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant- The New India Assurance Company Ltd. that the learned Tribunal while deciding the Issue Nos.II & III at Para-12 of the impugned judgment has recorded a finding that the accident was the outcome of the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. However, the liability has been shifted on the insurer of the Truck bearing Registration No.BPW 6313 only for the reason that it was insured at the time of accident whereas the another vehicle was not insured at the relevant time. 8. However, the liability has been shifted on the insurer of the Truck bearing Registration No.BPW 6313 only for the reason that it was insured at the time of accident whereas the another vehicle was not insured at the relevant time. 8. It is contended that liability should have been fixed upon both the owner/insurer of both the vehicles as it was a case of composite negligence. 9. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.6 –NIC submits that the vehicle was not under the insurance cover at the relevant time of accident. It is submitted that this plea was specifically taken before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal has also recorded a finding at Para-13 of the impugned judgment. 10. The owner of the vehicle has not appeared in this case after substituted service of notice by way of paper publication and consequently, the instant Misc. Appeal has been heard ex-parte. 11. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, the main point for determination is whether the learned Tribunal misdirected itself by shifting liability solely on the insurer of Truck bearing Registration No.BPW 6313 for the reason that it was insured at the time of accident. 12. On perusal of the records, it is evident that FIR and charge-sheet were filed against both the vehicles. It is not in dispute that the deceased was the cleaner working on the Truck bearing Registration No.WGA 6893 which collided with another Truck bearing Registration No.BPW 6313. FIR and charge-sheet were submitted against drivers of both the vehicles and it was a clear-cut case of composite negligence. There is no contrary evidence to show that the accident resulted solely on account of wrong parking of Truck bearing Registration No.BPW 6313. In this view of the matter, there is no reason to differ with the finding of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal that it was a case of composite negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles which resulted into the death of Nepal Mandal who was serving as cleaner in the Truck bearing Registration No.WGA 6893. 13. Therefore logically liability of paying compensation should have been 50:50 on the owner/insurer of both the vehicles. However the claimants have a right to claim compensation from either of the owner/insurer of the offending vehicle. 14. 13. Therefore logically liability of paying compensation should have been 50:50 on the owner/insurer of both the vehicles. However the claimants have a right to claim compensation from either of the owner/insurer of the offending vehicle. 14. Law is settled that in case of composite negligence, the claimants are entitled to get compensation from either of the insurer/ owner of the vehicles. 15. In this view of the matter, so far as the insurer of Truck bearing Registration No.BPW 6313 is concerned, appellant- Insurance Company is liable to pay full compensation amount to the claimants. However, there will be right to recover the 50% of the compensation, by the Appellant- Insurance Company, from the owner of the another vehicle bearing Registration No.WGA 6893 as it is a case of composite negligence. 16. The instant Misc. Appeal stands partly allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. 17. The statutory amount deposited at the time of preferring the instant Misc.Appeal shall be remitted to the learned Tribunal so as to disburse/ adjust to the claimants. 18. It goes without saying that the amount already paid to the claimants shall be adjusted while making the final payment of the compensation amount.