The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to apportion the liability for effective and proper adjudication of the claims in cases of composite negligence.

P. Shanmugam, J.

The 6th respondent National Insurance Co. before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is the appellant here. The Tribunal passed an award in favour of the claimant holding that respondents 1 to 4 and 6 are jointly and severally liable and directing the 6th respondent insurance company to deposit the whole amount of Rs. 50,930/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The appeal is against tills award.

2. The facts briefly, stated are as follows: The first respondent claimant was a passenger in a lorry bearing registration No. KLK 35 80 going from Mutholikkadavu to Mylankandathu with a load of timber on 17.2.1984. At about 1 p.m. when the lorry came to the Mevada Junction, another lorry hearing registration No. KLF 605 came from the opposite direction collided with lorry KLK 3580. The 1st respondent and others were injured. He was taken to the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Palai and then to Medical College Hospital wherein he had undergone prolonged treatment as an inpatient. He had also undergone further treatment of Fathima Mission Hospital. Kozhuvanal for 45 days. Ext. A4 is the copy of the wound certificate showing 4 cm x 4 cm wound over the posterior aspect of the upper third right thigh. lacerated wound 4 cm. x 5 cm on the posterior aspect of the right knee. superficial abrasion over the outer aspect of the right knee. multiple lacerated wound on the right foot. lacerated woundlIxlxl cros. on the posterior aspect of lower end of right leg and dislocation of right knee. Consequently. his right knee was operated. He had also undergone hospital treatment for 6 months as inpatient. He filed a petition claiming a compensation of Rs. l lakh.

3. The Tribunal found that the 1st respondent claimant sustained injuries as alleged. On the issue relevant for our consideration. viz.. 'on whose negligence the accident occurred?'. the Tribunal found that the accident was the result of the composite negligence of the drivers of both the lorries and fixed-a compensation of Rs. 50.930/-. One of the insurance companies. viz.. the New India Assurance Company. the insurer of lorry KLK 35 80. was exonerated from the liability by the Tribunal since the lorry was not insured with them. Consequently. the drivers and the owners of the lorries and the National Insurance Company. the insurer of lorry KLF 605. were held jointly liable. However. the Tribunal directed the 6th respondent alone to deposit the amount. Hence the appeal.

4. In the appeal. the Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal erred in directing the appellant to deposit the entire amount of compensation when the finding is that the accident was the result of the composite negligence. It is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have decided the percentage of negligence and should have apportioned and fixed the compensation payable by the appellant.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant submitted that the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident were joint tort-feasors and. therefore. the claimant can proceed against any one of them since their liability is joint and several. Therefore. there cannot be any apportionment of the compensation. In support of this contention. he referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Velunni v. Vellakiitty (1989 (2) KLT 227) wherein the Division Bench held as follows:

"The apportionment of the compensation in the case of 'legal representatives of Mohandas is clearly contrary to law. The Tribunal should have held that it is a case of joint and several liability. We are of opinion that in the interests of justice we should rectify the error committed even with out an appeal or cross-objection. We have already indicated that the contention that driver. owner and the insurer of the stage carriage bus are liable for the entire compensation has been taken in MFA 601 of 1983. We. therefore. set aside the direction of the Tribunal that the compensation due to the legal representatives of Mohan