JUDGMENT : SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J. 1. The appellant herein/claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act of 1988’) questioning the impugned award by which his application for grant of compensation filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 has been rejected. 2. In an accident caused to the motorcycle driven by the owner-cum-driver Jitendra Kumar Verma – respondent No.1 herein, the appellant herein/injured suffered permanent disability, as he was sitting on the motorcycle as pillion rider and an unknown vehicle truck has dashed the motorcycle driven by owner-cum-driver Jitendra Kumar Verma – respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 herein Insurance Company. The Claims Tribunal has rejected the application holding that it is a hit and run case, therefore, application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 would not be maintainable. 3. Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein/claimant/injured, would submit that the claim petition was maintainable as the accident was caused by the owner of the vehicle who was driving the vehicle, which was insured by the Insurance Company, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of T.O. Antony v. Karvarnan and others , 2008 AIR SCW 2045 : (2008) 3 SCC 748 and therefore the appeal be allowed and the matter be remanded to the Claims Tribunal for adjudication of the claim petition in accordance with law. 4. Mr. Shobhit Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company/respondent No.2 herein, would oppose the appeal and support the impugned award. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. In this case, one unknown vehicle and the vehicle owned by respondent No.1 herein bearing registration No.CG-08/AM-7639 both were involved and as such, it is a case of composite negligence which has been considered by the Supreme Court in T.O. Antony (supra) in which their Lordships while outlining the distinction between composite negligence and contributory negligence, observed as under: - “ 6. ‘ Composite negligence’ refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. ‘ Composite negligence’ refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally 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 separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability 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 partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence on the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. 7. Therefore, when two vehicles are involved in an accident, and one of the drivers claims compensation from the other driver alleging negligence, and the other driver denies negligence or claims that the injured claimant himself was negligent, then it becomes necessary to consider whether the injured claimant was negligent and if so, whether he was solely or partly responsible for the accident and the extent of his responsibility, that is his contributory negligence. Therefore where the injured is himself partly liable, the principle of ‘composite negligence’ will not apply nor can there be an automatic inference that the negligence was 50:50 as has been assumed in this case. The Tribunal ought to have examined the extent of contributory negligence of the appellant and thereby avoided confusion between composite negligence and contributory negligence. The High Court has failed to correct the said error.” 7. The Tribunal ought to have examined the extent of contributory negligence of the appellant and thereby avoided confusion between composite negligence and contributory negligence. The High Court has failed to correct the said error.” 7. Coming to the facts of the case, admittedly, the appellant herein/injured was pillion rider in one of the vehicles involved in the incident and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in T.O. Antony (supra), present would be a case of composite negligence and not contributory negligence. The present claimant/injured has the choice of claiming the entire compensation from owner and driver of any of the vehicles and the present injured/claimant has chosen to claim compensation from respondent No.1 herein i.e. the owner-cum-driver and from the insurer i.e. the Insurance Company/ respondent No.2 herein of the motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-08/AM-7639 which could not have been rejected by the Claims Tribunal on the ground of non-maintainability. 8. In that view of the matter, the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Claims Tribunal for hearing and disposal, in accordance with law, expeditiously. 9. The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated herein-above with no order as to cost(s).