Harsha Devani, J.

1. Heard Mr. Anal Shah, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Parmar, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 4. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the Court is of the view that the matter requires consideration, hence, admit. By this appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the appellant-Insurance Company has called in question the judgment and award dated 21st February, 2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Banaskantha (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 255 of 1996 whereby the appellant, together with the respondent Nos. 4 to 6, has been held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

2. The facts stated briefly are that on 3rd February, 1996 at 9-30 in the night, a vehicular accident took place on the Kandla-Bhildi National Highway between a Truck bearing No. PBO-4-2372 and Jeep No. GJ-1-K-9370. On account of the said vehicular accident, four persons died including one Raval Laduben Pasabhai. The heirs of deceased Laduben filed a claim petition being Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 255 of 1996 before me Claims Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident had occurred on account of negligence on the part of me drivers of both the motor vehicles and held the driver of the truck liable to the extent of 65% and the driver of me jeep to the extent of 35%. Partly allowing the claim petition, the Tribunal held that the appellant and the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs. 2,25,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the claimants. The appellant is aggrieved by the fact that the Tribunal after finding that the truck driver was liable to me extent of 65% and the jeep driver was liable to me extent of 35% did not apportion the amount of compensation payable by the owners and drivers of the respective vehicles.

3. Mr. Anal Shah, learned Advocate for the appellant, at me outset, submitted that the present appeal is limited to the extent the Tribunal has held the appellant jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation of Rs. 2,25,500/-. It was submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the Claim Petition was filed under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and therefore, once the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was composite negligence on the part of the drivers of the vehicle, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to apportion the amount of compensation payable by me parties. Referring to the impugned award, it was pointed out that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the driver of the truck was negligent to the extent of 65% and that the driver of the jeep was negligent to the extent of 35%. Despite the aforesaid position, the Claims Tribunal did not fasten the liability on the parties in proportion to the negligence attributed to each of them. It was submitted that though both the tort-feasors have been held to be liable, the amount has been recovered from the appellant alone and the appellant has no remedy of recovering the amount to the extent of liability of the driver of the jeep in view of the provisions of Sec. 175 of the Act which bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It was submitted, that the negligence having been apportioned by the Tribunal, the claimants should be directed to recover 35% of the compensation from the heirs of the driver-cum-owner of the jeep but the appellant should not be made liable to pay the entire amount of compensation. Reference was made to the provisions of Sec. 168 of the Act to submit that the Tribunal after making an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid, is required to spe