( 1. ) THIS case is referred to the larger Bench to settle the question whether apportionment is permissible in case of composite negligence. This Court has decided a number of cases on the question of composite negligence and due to divergent view pertaining to composite negligence, the dispute is referred to the larger Bench.

( 2. ) FIRST case decided on this question is Manjula Devi Bhuta v. Manjusri Raha and Ors. , 1968 ACJ 1 MP. In this case, the Court considered types of negligence including composite negligence and contributory negligence and after considering the difference between contributory negligence and composite negligence, it is held that when the victim has suffered injuries or death is caused on account of act of two vehicles without his fault, then the claimant is free to choose any of the joint tort-feasors and claim compensation from him. While considering this aspect, it is held that in our view where as a result of collision between two motor vehicles, a person other than their driver, is injured, the Tribunal will not fix contribution as between persons liable (apart from specifying the liability of the insurer ).

( 3. ) IN the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Shardabai and Ors. , 1997 ACJ 649, Division Bench of this Court while interpreting the judgment in the case of Manjula Devi Bhuta (supra) has held that the claimant has right to recover whole amount of the compensation from the owner of one vehicle without impleading the owner and driver and insurance company of the other vehicle.

( 4. ) IN the case of Vimla Gangotiya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. , 1995 ACJ 53, it is held that it is proper to apportion the inter se liability and specify the amount payable by the two tort-feasors, while interpreting the judgment in the case of Manjula Devi Bhuta (supra ).

( 5. ) IN the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chand Ratan, 2001 (3) M. P. H. T. 130 (DB) = 2001 (2) MPLJ 299, it is held that in composite negligence, both tort-feasors are severally and jointly liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. It is the discretion of the claimant to proceed against both the tort-feasors or against one. The remedy of the tort-feasors who is proceeded against is to recover the amount from the other tort-feasor. The liability of inter se tort-feasors can be decided to avoid the multifariousness of the proceedings. However, while considering the case of Manjula Devi Bhuta (supra) it is held in Para 6-A of the judgment that while referring to the decision of this Court in Manjula Devi Bhuta and also on the observations made in Law of Torts second edition 1992 by Justice G. P. Singh that in composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tort-feasors is not permissible. While referring to the judgment in the case of Kirti and Anr. v. Rajendra and Ors. , 2000 ACJ 663, wherein it is held that in composite negligence, the amount of compensation can not be apportioned and the claimants can not be directed to proceed to recover the apportioned amount from each vehicle. After referring to this judgment, it is held that liability of tort-feasors inter se can be decided.

( 6. ) IN the case of Hullanbai and Ors. v. Jagdish Prasad and Ors. , 1991 ACJ 198, Division Bench of this court has held that apportionment of inter se liability is permissible and liability was apportioned. While deciding the composite negligence, it is held that every wrongdoer is liable and it docs not lie in the mouth of one wrongdoer to say that though I am also responsible, yet the other man was also equally responsible for the wrong and on this basis, he can not avoid the liability. It is further held that normally in the case of composite negligence, it is not possible to fix the liability among the different drivers but both are jointly and severally liable to the claimant because they arc joint tort-feasors. However, in Para 17, it is held that the liability for payment of the amount of the award