The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of joint and several liability in cases of composite negligence under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Amar Dutt, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 255 to 260 and 478 to 482 of 1997. For the purpose of this judgment, the facts are being taken from FAO No. 478 of 1997.

2. On 11.2.1991 at about 4.00 P.M. within the revenue limits of village Godana, Police Station Dhilwan, District Kapurthala a head on collision took place between Maruti Car bearing registration No. CH 01 1477 which was owned by Neera Gullati at the time of accident and was being driven by Shri P.S. Multani and a truck bearing registration No. PUU 9201 which is owned by Kashmiri Lal. The accident had resulted into the death of Atinderjit Singh and injures to Kamaljit Kaur, Baby Gurnoor, Balwant Kaur, Narinder Kaur and Baby Karishma. Claim petitions have been filed by the injured and all the heirs of Atinderjit Singh under the Motor Vehicles Act asserting that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles. These petitions were contested by the respondents who admitted the factum of accident but denied that the same had taken place owing to the negligence of the driver of the car. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. had in a separate written statement denied the factum of accident for want of knowledge and raised preliminary objections regarding the application being bad for non-joinder of the drivers of the vehicle involved and that the driver of the car was not holding any valid driving licence. Kashmiri Lal, the owner of the truck had asserted that the accident had taken place as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the car by Atinderjit Singh, deceased, himself. He had also taken the plea that the claim applications were bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

"1. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged in preliminary objection of written statement ? OPR-2 and 3.

2. Whether respondent No. 2 has no liability to pay the compensation in view of the preliminary objection No. 5 of the written statement of respondent No. 2 ? OPR-2

3. Whether the driver of the Maruti car was not holding valid driving licence in view of the preliminary objection No. 3 of the written statement of respondent No. 2 ? If so, its effect ? OPR-2.

4. Whether P.S. Multani was not authorised to drive the car ? If so, to what effect ? OPR-2.

5. Whether the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Maruti car No. CH01/1477 driven by P.S. Multani ? OPR-3.

7. Whether accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No. PUU 9201 and Maruti car No. CH-01-1477 ? OPA.

8. If above issues No. 7 and 8 proved, to what amount, the claimant/claimants is/are entitled to compensation and from whom, OPA

9. Relief.

So far as Issue No. 6 framed in each of the claim application excepting MACT case No. 36, is concerned, is also almost common excepting the name of the injured and it is as under: Whether applicant (named) was injured on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No. PUU-9201 and Maruti car No. CH-01-1477 ? OPA.

However, so far as M.A.C.T. Case No. 36 of 1991 is concerned, Issue No. 6 is as under :-

"Whether deceased Atinderjit Singh died on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No. PUU-9201 and Maruti car No. CH-01-1477 driven by P.S. Multani? OPA."

3 Since all the applications arose out of the same accident, they were consolidated for the purposes of evidence. After the parties had led evidence, arguments were heard and the Tribunal disposed of Issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants, issue Nos. 2 to 4 were also decided against respondent No. 3. Issues Nos. 5 and 7 were taken up together and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti car by P.S. Multani and truck No. PUU-9201 driven by its driver. Issue No. 6 was also decided in favour of the applicants and wh