Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the award dated 06.02.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in Claim Petition No. 84/1993 whereby a compensation of Rs. 1,13,000/ - has been awarded in favour of the respondents No. 1 to 4 (claimants). Brief facts of the case are that on 23.10.1992, the deceased Mangi Lal was traveling in bus No. RNP 453 of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and when the bus was moving from Kankaroli to Gangapur, in the way collision between the bus and truck No. GRW -2040 look place and in that collision, Mangi Lal died.
(2.) RESPONDENTS No. 1 to 4 (claimants) had filed claim petition before the Tribunal against the appellant and respondent No. 5 driver of the bus No. RNP 453. The claim petition was contested by the appellant and the respondent No. 5. On the basis of pleadings of learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal has framed as many as five issues. While deciding issue No. 1, the Tribunal has held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus No. RNP 453. While deciding issue No. 3, the learned Tribunal has held that from the evidence produced on behalf of the appellant as well as the respondent No. 5, it is proved that accident occurred on account of composite negligence of bus driver as well as the driver of truck No. GRW 2040, Prahalad Singh. However, the Tribunal has held that even in case of composite negligence, the claimants can claim compensation from either of the wrongdoers. While deciding the issue No. 2, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 2,000/ - per month and after assessing compensation in different heads has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,13,000/ - to the claimants. The only point raised on behalf of the appellants is that though while deciding the issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal has held that the accident took place on account of composite negligence of the bus driver as well as the truck driver but the liability has been fastened upon the appellant only. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal should have decided the extent of liability of each wrongdoer and thereafter had fastened the liability in proportion of the negligence of the wrong doers. It is also claimed that the Insurance Company, truck owner or the driver were not made parties before the Tribunal and though an objection to this effect was taken but the same was rejected by the Tribunal in illegal manner. It is further contended that the truck owner, driver of the truck and the Insurance Company had not been made parties in the claim petition and, therefore, the claim petition should have been rejected on the ground of non -joinder of necessary parties. On the basis of above submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for quashing of the judgment and award dated 06.02.1998 passed by the Tribunal be quashed and set aside.
(3.) PER contra, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 has supported the award and has contended that in case of composite negligence, each wrongdoer is jointly and severely liable for the payment of entire damages caused and claimants have choice to proceed against all or any of them. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 has submitted that in case of composite negligence, it is not necessary for the Court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately.;