In cases of composite negligence, the Tribunal can apportion the liability between the joint tortfeasors, but the liability of all the tortfeasors towards the claimants is joint and several.

V.S.Aggarwal, J.

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter described as the appellant) by virtue of the present appeal challenges the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sonepat, dated 4.6.1996. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) had allowed the claim petition filed by San-tosh, Sonia and Risalo (respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the present appeal). A sum of Rs. 4,80,000 was awarded as compensation in their favour and as against respondent Nos. 1 to 4, namely, Narayan Singh, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Raj Kumar and Ajay Kumar. This amount was awarded on account of death of Jagbir Singh. Further a sum of Rs. 50,000 was awarded as compensation in favour of Santosh against the same persons on account of the death of Sonu. It was directed that they are liable to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation of the amount. Out of the total compensation, the minor child of deceased Jagbir Singh was held entitled to Rs. 1,50,000. The share of minor Sonia was directed to be deposited in her name in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank. She was to withdraw the same on attaining majority.

2. The relevant facts are tnat on 14.2.1994 Jagbir Singh is stated to be coming from Kharkhoda side on Sonepat Road along with his minor child. There were other occupants in the jeep. It was being driven by Raj Kumar respondent. When this jeep reached in the area of village Jharot Anandpur, a truck No. HNR 2475 came from the opposite side. It was being driven at a high speed by Narayan Singh respondent. The said truck struck against the jeep by coming on the wrong side. As a result of the accident that took place Jagbir Singh and his son Sonu died. Santosh, widow of Jagbir Singh, mother and another child of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation at Rs. 6,00,000 on account of the death of Jagbir Singh and Rs. 1,00,000 on account of the death of minor Sonu. It had been pointed out that Jagbir Singh was aged about 38 years at the time of the accident and was serving as a constable in Haryana Police. His salary was Rs. 3,750 and all of them were dependent on Jagbir Singh.

3. The petition as such was contested. Narayan Singh, the driver of the truck, alleged that there was no negligence on his part. In fact it was the jeep which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. He denied his liability to pay any compensation. The appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed its separate written statement. It denied the liability to pay compensation. The appellants case was that Narayan Singh did not hold any valid licence at the time of the accident. Therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay the compensation (sic). It was further held that death of Jagbir Singh and minor Sonu took place because of the composite negligence of Narayan Singh and Raj Kumar, namely, the two drivers of the truck and the jeep respectively. Their negligence was assessed at 50:50. With these basic findings after calculating the income, the dependency of the petitioners before the Tribunal, with proper multiplier the compensation order was passed which has already been mentioned above.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

5. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant did not raise any controversy regarding the quantum of the compensation that has been awarded. He assailed the award of the Tribunal on two counts: namely, (a) Narayan Singh did not hold a valid driving licence and, therefore, as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation, and (b) in any case the Tribunal was in error in holding that amount can be recovered from the owner, driver and the insurance company jointly and severally. As per the learned Counsel, once the Tribunal has held that both the drivers of the vehicles were negligent to t