MACApp. 25/2004 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B LOKUR The appellant is aggrieved by judgment and order dated 19/7/2003 passed by the M otor Accident Claims Tribunal in MAC Case No. 155/2002. The appeal is filed by claimant No. 1, the widow of the deceased and appellant N o. 2 is the mother of the deceased. It appears that the deceased along with the family members was returning home fr om Guwahati to Sipajhar by a Maruti Van. The driver of the vehicle tried to over take a bus and as a result the vehicle collided against a Mini Truck coming from the opposite direction. The deceased sustained injuries as a result of which he died a few days later. The claimants preferred a petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of R s. 5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled t o an amount of Rs. 4,16,000/-. It was directed that the respondents New India As surance Company Limited would pay only 50% of the amount. Feeling aggrieved the appellant is in appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to T. O. Anthony versus Karvarnan and others, (2008) 3 SCC 748 more particularly to para 6 thereof whic h reads as follows:- Composite negligence refers to the negligence on the part of two or more person s. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or mor e wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and s everally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer s eparately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liabilit y of each wrongdoer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons and partl y as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence on the part of the inju red which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory neglige nce. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is no t defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recove rable by him in respect of the injuries stand reduced in proportion to his contr ibutory negligence. From a perusal of the above, it is quite clear that in a case of composite negli gence such as the present, the appellants were entitled to claim compensation ag ainst any one of the parties which caused the accident. That they chose to claim compensation against the respondents, the owner of the Maruti Van and the injur ed does not mean that they are disentitled to the entire claim. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, there is no doubt that the claiman ts are entitled to the entire amount from the New India Insurance Company, the c ase being one of composite negligence. The Award is modified to the extent that the New India Insurance Company Limited will be liable to pay the entire decretal amount with interest @ 9% as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition. The appeal is allowed. Trial court records be sent back. Misc. case also stands disposed of.