( 1 ) THE division ing questions of law to the full bench for bench, which was hearing the present first its opinion: appeal on merits, has referred the follow-"whether in a case of a motor vehicle accident caused due to the composite negligence of the drivers of two or more vehicles, the person who is injured or the legal representatives of a person who is killed in such an accident, is/are entitled to claim the entire compensation from all or any of the drivers, owners and insurers of the vehicles involved in the accident. Or whether in such a case the injured or the legal representatives of the deceased can recover only that part of compensation from each set of driver, owner or insurer which is proportionate to the quantum of negligence of that driver, which contributed to the accident?"

( 2 ) THE present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the new act') against a judgment and award dated 20. 10. 1992 passed by the motor accidents claims tribunal, Bangalore rural district in m. v. c. No. 1111 of 1988 awarding a compensation of Rs. 35,000 to the appellant with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit with costs. Out of the said sum, respondent No. 1, syed munned ahamed, being the owner of the lorry No. Med 7457 (hereinafter the 'first lorry') has been held liable to pay 70 per cent and respondent No. 3, r. Rangappa naik and respondent No. 4, new India assurance co. Ltd. , respectively being the owner and the insurer of lorry bearing No. Caa 2978 (hereinafter the 'second lorry') have been held liable to pay 30 per cent jointly and severally. It may be relevant to specifically notice here that respondent No. 2, united India insurance co. Ltd. , has been absolved of its liability as insurer of the first lorry in which the appellant and two other injured persons were travelling on the ground that they were gratuitous passengers.

( 3 ) I will proceed to answer the question of law referred to me on the basis of the facts found and the respective liabilities determined by the tribunal, leaving it open for the division bench to examine the validity thereof on merits.

( 4 ) THE tribunal found that on 9. 10. 88 at 7 a. m. while the present appellant along with venkatesh, PW 1 and shankar, pw 3 was travelling in the first lorry towards Bangalore sustained injuries because of head-on collision between the first and second lorries, which were proceeding in opposite directions. The tribunal has further found that the said accident had taken place because of an unwarranted effort on the part of the driver of the first lorry to overtake a K. S. R. T. C. bus despite the signal given by the bus driver not to do so. Accordingly, the tribunal did not find any fault with the driver of K. S. R. T. C. bus but found the drivers of the two lorries being accused of rash and negligent driving to the extent noticed above.

( 5 ) ONE of the grounds raised before the division bench in this appeal was that it was a case of composite negligence of the drivers of two lorries and that the appellant who had sustained injuries on account of that composite negligence was entitled to recover the whole of the compensation either from the owner and insurer of the second lorry or from the owner of the first lorry in which he was travelling and that the tribunal has erred in restricting his claim against owner and insurer of the second lorry only to the extent of 30 per cent of the compensation.

( 6 ) IT was further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant before the division bench, that the ruling of this court in the case of Karnataka State Road Trans. Corpn. V. Reny Mammen, 1991 ACJ 403 (karnataka), holding that in the case of a claim for compensation for death or injury caused by a motor accident on account of rash or negligent driving of more than one motor vehicle by the drivers of those vehicles, the tribunal should award