The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of composite negligence, all liable parties are jointly and severally responsible for the full compensation. The court also clarified the limit of liability of the insurer of the bus, holding that the limit of insurance is Rs.50,000/- for each injured person in the case of third parties.

1. Velunni, fourth respondent in M.A.C.No. 239 of 1981 and 242 of 1981 is the appellant in M.F.A.No. 601 of 1983 which is preferred against the judgment in M.A.C. No. 242 of 1981 filed by legal representatives of Mohandas. Legal representatives of Pangunni, petitioners in M.A.C. No. 239 of 1981 are the appellants in M.F.A.No. 638 of 1983. They are not parties to M.A.C.NO.242 of 1981 or M.F.A.No. 601 of 1983.

2. On 7-6-1981 at about 5.15 p.m. when Pangunni was driving from south to north motor cycle KLR 1736 with Mohandas on the pillion at Cherampadam in Kinassery amsom in Palghat taluk, stage carriage bus KLP 7933 came from the opposite direction and hit the motor cycle which along with the driver and the pillion rider was dragged over a distance. Both of them sustained fatal injuries and died. Owner, driver and insurer of the bus were impleaded as respondents 1 to 3 respectively in both the claim petitions. Velunni, owner of the motor cycle, and the insurer of the motor cycle were impleaded in both the claim petitions as respondents 4 and 5 respectively. Claimants contended that the occurrence was the result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the stage carriage bus and, therefore, the owner, driver and the insurer were liable to pay compensation.

3. The owner and driver of the bus denied that bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner. According to them, a bus by name Babitha was coming from south to north and the motor cycle was coming behind the bus and Pangunni could not see bus KLP 7933 coming from north to south. Driver of Babitha bus took it to the extreme left side of the road, namely western side, to allow bus KLP 7933 to pass. Second respondent driver took his bus to his extreme left side, namely, eastern side. Pangunni, thinking that Babitha bus moved over to the western side to allow the motor cycle to overtake it, tried to overtake it at a high speed and in the process, motor cycle hit the bus coming from north to south. Rashness and negligence, if at all, was on the part of Pangunni. Insurer of the bus supported this contention and further contended that the insurer's liability was limited to Rs.50,000/-. Insurer of the motor cycle contended that the motor cycle was insured only for third party risk and, therefore, the insurer was not liable. Pangunni, owner of the motor cycle remained exparte.

4. Both the petitions were tried together. The tribunal held that Pangunni as well as the driver of the bus KLP 7933 were driving their vehicles rashly, negligently and it was a case of composite negligence, that is, contributory negligence on the part of Pangunni. The tribunal assessed the responsibility of Pangunni at 50%. Total compensation in regard to death of Pangunni was assessed at Rs.38,500/-, though award was passed against the owner, driver and insurer of the bus only for half the amount. According to the tribunal, Pangunni's dependants were not entitled to collect the balance 50% which is related to contributory negligence of Pangunni. The tribunal fixed the compensation due to the widow and children of Mohandas at Rs.41,480/- and directed payment in equal moieties on the basis of composite negligence of the drivers of the two vehicles. The tribunal held that Mohandas was a gratuitous passenger in the motor cycle and the insurer of the motor cycle has no liability regarding his death. Half the amount due to the legal representatives of Mohandas payable on account of the negligence of Pangunni was directed to be paid by Velunni, owner of the motor cycle and the other half by the owner, driver and insurer of the bus.

5. Velunni, owner of the motor cycle has filed M.F.A.No.601 of 1983 against the award in favour of legal representatives of Mohandas challenging the finding regarding composite negligence and 50% liability fixed on him. He further contends that if he is found liable, it must be discharged by his insurer. Legal representatives of Pangunni have filed M.F.A.No.638 of 1983 challeng