In cases of composite negligence, where an accident is caused by the negligence of multiple parties, the liability is joint and several, and the legal representatives of the deceased can claim compensation from any one of the tortfeasors.

1. - This is a claimants' Misc. Appeal against the award dated 29th August, 1980, of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tonk District Judge, Tonkj (for short 'the Tribunal'). Under the said award the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition preferred by the petitioners before him.

2. On March 22, 1975, an accident took place in which two trucks having Nos. RSL 1645 and DHG 188 were involved. One Narain Teli was the driver of the truck No. RSL 1645 and Vecrendra Kumar was a passenger in the said truck which was proceeding from Tonk to Devii. The said truck left Jaipur in the night of March 21, 1975, and reached near the village Saroli at about 7 a.m. When the said truck reached near village Saroli another truck No. DHG 188 was seen coming at a fast speed from the opposite direction from the side of Devii. There was a sudden collision between the two trucks as a result of which Narain Teli. driver of truck No. RSL 1645 as well as Vecrendra Kumar received injuries and they both died on the spot. A report of the accident was lodged in the Police Station concerned by one Tej Singh constable No. 433 who was also sitting in truck No. RSL 1645. A claim under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the MV Act') was filed by the father and mother of the deceased, Veerendra Kumar, as his legal representatives. In the said claim petition, besides impleading Harpal Singh, Gurmeet Singh and the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Jaipur as non-petitioner Nos. I to 3, i.e., the owner of the said vehicle, the driver and the insurance company respectively of the said truck No. DHG 188 and the owner and legal representatives of the deceased driver and the insurance company of the truck No. RSL 1645 were initially impleaded as the non-petitioners. But, later on the names of the owner and the legal representatives of the deceased driver of the truck No. RSL 1645 were deleted from the array of the non-petitioners by order of the Tribunal, dated October 26, 1976. Again, on 7th February, 1980, it was given out on behalf of the claimants before the Tribunal that they do not want to contest the claim against the non-petitioner, National Insurance Company Ltd.. Kota of Mick No. RSL 1645.

3. The petition was contested on behalf of the owner and the driver of the truck No. DHG 188. The Tribunal framed the following five issues:

1. Whether the applicant Nos. 3,4 and 5 are the legal representatives of the deceased and they are also entitled to compensation?

2. Whether the accident was caused due to negligent and rash act of truck No. DHG 188?

3. Whether the driver of vehicle No. DHG 188 was not having a valid licence?

4. Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- or any other sum against which of the non- petitioners?

5. Relief?

4. After recording the evidence of the parties the Tribunal decided issue Nos. 2 and 3 against the claimant-applicants and in favour of respondent No. 2, who is the legal representative of the owner of the truck. Harpal Singh and the driver of the truck which met with the accident. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed.

5. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. In spite of service none has put in appearance for the respondent No. 1, who, as already stated earlier, is a legal representative of Harpal Singh, the owner of the truck No. DHG 188 and who was present at the time of the accident. The appeal has been contested by New India Assurance Company Ltd., Jaipur of truck No. DHG 188.

6. It may be stated that only limited defences are available to the insurer. But, so far as the Tribunal is concerned, the claim could only he decreed in case the Tribunal could come to the conclusion that the accident was the result of the negligent driving by Gurmeet Singh, driver. Therefore, so far as the Tribunal is concerned, it was necessary for the Tribunal to have recorded the findings that the driver of the truck was rash and negl