The Tribunal has jurisdiction to apportion liability between joint tortfeasors, even in cases of composite negligence, to determine the amount payable by each party. This apportionment is for the facility of the parties and does not affect the claimant's right to recover the entire amount jointly and severally.

GOKAL CHAND MITAL, J.

1. Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (for short the Tribunal ), has the jurisdiction to determine the percentage of liability, in other words to apportion the liability of the tortfeasors inter se when in law their liability towards the claimants is joint and several, is the question posed in this appeal. The Motion Bench while admitting the appeal had entertained doubts on the correctness of the decision of M.M. Punchhi, J. in Mukhtiar Singh V/s. Smt. Krishna Gulati, 1986 (1) 89 Pun LR 600 and thus had ordered the appeal to the heard by a Division Bench. This is how this appeal is before us. Before we proceed to consider the law point, it would be necessary to state the brief facts.

2. On 24-7-1984 Narinderpal Singh claimant along with his brother Surinderpal Singh was travelling by Bus No. PUR 4401 owned by the Punjab Roadways. He was occupying the seat on the right side of the bus near the glass window. At about 6.45 p.m. when the bus reached near village Sarhana on Morinda Chamkaur Sahib road, a truck No. PUR 5985 coming from Morinda side collided against the bus. The truck was being driven by Hazara Singh respondent 5 and the bus by Prem Singh respondent 3. According to the allegations made by the claimant the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving by both the drivers. The claimant s right arm got crushed in the accident. He remained under treatment as an indoor patient from 25-7-1984 to 28-8-1984 and because of the injury his arm had to be amputated which rendered him disabled permanently.

3. The appellant filed claim application against both the drivers, owners of the bus and truck and since the truck was insured with the New India Assurance Company, it was also impleaded as one of the respondents.

4. The State of Punjab pleaded that the accident took place because of the negligence of the truck driver; whereas the truck driver denied his negligence and pleaded that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving by the bus driver.

5. Bus driver and owner of the truck had not put in appearance in spite of service and hence were proceeded against ex parte.

6. On the contest of the parties, the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the accident in question in which the injuries were received by the claimant petitioner Narinderpal Singh, was the result of rash and negligent driving of Bus No. PUR 4401 by its driver Prem Singh, respondent 3 and truck No. PUR 5989 by its driver Hazara Singh respondent No. 5 ? OPP

2. Whether the claimant-petitioner is entitled to any compensation ? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Relief.

7. On the evidence led in the case, the Tribunal held, that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of both the drivers and consequently decided blue No. 1 in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. As regards the compensation, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 75,000.00 to the claimant, Rs. 50,000.00 for loss of income, Rs. 15,000.00 for special damages on account of the amputation of arm, Rs. 5000.00 for pain and suffering and Rs. 5000.00 towards the expenditure incurred on treatment. Interest at the rate of 12% per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization thereof was also awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal below held owners of both the vehicles responsible to pay the amount jointly and severally on account of the composite liability.

8. Against the award of the Tribunal, FAO No. 436 of 1986 has been filed by the claimant, FAO No. 569 has been filed by the owner, driver and the Insurance Company of the truck and FAO No. 495 of 1986 has been filed by the State of Punjab. Since they arise out of the same accident and common judgment of the Tribunal they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

9. When there is collision of two vehicles, in law either it will be a case of negligence of driver of one of the vehicles or of both the vehicles. When it is a case of negligenc