1. Claimant is the appellant. He has filed the above appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal for the loss and injuries suffered by him in a motor accident.

2. His claim was for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The tribunal awarded him a sum of Rs.23,300/- with interest fixed, after coming to a finding that he too had contributed to the extent of 60% for the occurrence with the driver of the other vehicle as against whom he claimed compensation. Award so passed by the tribunal is challenged on the ground that the compensation awarded is inadequate.

3. Accident took place when appellant was riding on a motorcycle through Aluva-Munnar public road from east to west, at about 12.30 p.m on 24.9.2004. His bike collided with a private bus driven by first respondent and owned by second respondent coming from the opposite direction. Third respondent was the insurer of that bus. Crime registered on the statement of claimant proceeded against the driver of the bus as accused, but, later, after investigation, the case was referred treating it as an accident. Claimant filed a protest complaint against the driver of the bus, and, on cognizance of offences taken thereof by magistrate that driver appeared and pleaded guilty. Claimant relying on that circumstance imputed negligence on the driver of the bus for the occurrence. Tribunal looking into the materials placed, particularly, the scene of crime stated in the mahazar prepared by police and also the final report, came to the conclusion that claimant had contributed for the occurrence to the extent of 60% and driver of the bus to the extent of 40%. With reference to the loss and injuries suffered by claimant a sum of Rs.50,119/- was assessed, but having regard to the percentage of contributory negligence found against him for the occurrence, 40% of that sum i.e.23,300/- alone was found payable and that was awarded as compensation directing the insurer (third respondent) to pay such sum with interest fixed.

4. I have heard the counsel for the claimant and also the third respondent insurer. The third respondent insurer has specifically contended that the accident arose solely due to the fault of claimant, rider of the bike. Scene of crime disclosed that the occurrence took place at about 75cm away from the central portion of the road towards its north indicating that the bike ridden by the claimant was on its wrong side. Insurer contended that while the claimant riding the bike overtook a lorry moving in the same direction, rashly and negligently, his vehicle collided against the bus coming from the opposite direction. Negligence imputed against him was countered by claimant relying upon the admission of guilt made before magistrate by driver of the bus who was proceeded as accused in his protest complaint. The tribunal appreciating the facts and materials concluded that claimant contributed to the extent of 60% and driver of the bus for 40% for the occurrence. So, larger question that emerges for consideration in this appeal is whether the tribunal was justified in awarding compensation to claimant when his contributory negligence for the accident was shown to be 60%.

5. Two vehicles are involved in the occurrence. Where drivers of both such vehicles conjointly caused the accident by their negligence, then, it is a case of composite negligence. In such a case where one of them seeks compensation against the driver, owner and insurer of the other vehicle,naturally, to what extent he contributed for the occurrence has to be determined by tribunal. Where both drivers are culpable and at fault, percentage of contributory negligence of each driver has to be determined. If both have contributed for the occurrence equally, there is no question of awarding compensation to one from the other since as a tort feasor he would be liable equally to the other joint tort feasor. When that be so, in the present case where tribunal found that the claimant contributed for the occurr