n HIGH CQURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR •^s- / APPELLANTS Claimants RESPONDENTS Non-aDplicants APPELLANT Claimant RESPONDENTS Non-^ipDJjcants APPELLANT Claimant RESPONDENTS Non-aDpJicahts IVI.A(C)No.1105of2010 Smt. Madhuri Sahu and others. VERSUS Surendra Gadatiya and others. M.A(ClNo.1106of2010 Smt. GeetaSahu. VERSUS Surendra Gadatiya and others. M.A(ClNo.1112of2010 Smt. Madhuri Sahu VERSUS Surendra Gadatiya and others. AWARD FOR CONSIDERATION 2L^ ^.2011 Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA 1 z^-^T<-^ Sd/- Chief Justice For Pronouncement of Award 5Q .09.2011 Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge ^o HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR Misc.ADDeaKClNo. 1105 of2010 APPELLANTS Claimants RESPONDENTS Non-apblicants 1. Smt. Madhuri Sahu, age 40 yrs, W/o Late Chandrashekhar Sahu, 2. Ku. Suman Sahu, age 12 yrs.Minor D/o late Chandrashekhar Sahu, 3. Bhavesh Sahu, age 10 yrs, minor S/o late Chandrashekhar Sahu, Appellant No. 2 & 3 are minor children and are beihg represented by appellant No. 1 mother in relation, R/o village Dharambandha (Madhuband), PS Nuwapada, Distt. Nuwapada(Orissa). VERSUS 1. Surendra Gadatiya, age 24 year, S/o Shri Kirti Gadatiya, R/o village Kewtipali, PS Luisinga, Tahsil & Distt. Balangir(Orissa). (Driver of Truck No. CG-04/G/3933) 2. Shri Sushant Kumar, age 36 yrs S/o Shri Ishwar Das, R/Q Ward No. 15 PS & Djstt. Bargarh (Orissa). (Owner of fmck No. CG-04/G/39:33) 3. The United India insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch S Office Krishna Complex, Katehari Ghowk, Madjna Building, Jail Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur(CG). (Ins. Company of Truck No. CG- 04/G/3933). Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 1106 of 2010 APPELLANT Claimant RESPONDENTS Non-aDplicants Smt. Geeta Sahu, agej 32 yrs, S/o Shri Surendra Kumar Sahu, R/o village Dharambandha (Madhuband), PS Nuwapada, Distt.Nuwapada(Orissa). VERSUS 1. Surendra Gadatiya, age 24 year, S/o Shri Kirti Gadatiya, R/o vijlage Kewtipali, PS Luisinga, Tahsil & Distt. Balangir (Orissa). (DriverofTruckNo.CG-04/G/3933) ^Ts^v 1 >^^, ^ APPELLANT Claimant 2. Shri Sushant Kumar, age 36 yrs S/o Shri Ishwar Das, R/o Ward No. 15 PS & Distt. Bargarh (Orissa). (OwnerofTruckNo. CG-04/G/3933) 3. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Office Krishna Complex, Katehari Chowk, Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur, Distt. Rajpur (CG). (Ins. Company of Truck No. CG- 04/G/3933). & Misc. ADpeal (C) No. 1112 of 2010 Smt. Madhuri Sahu, age 40 yrs, S/o late Chandrashekhar Sahu, R/o village Dharambandha (Madhuband), PS Nuwapada, Distt. Nuwapada (Orissa). RESPONDENTS Non-apDlicants VERSUS 1. Surendra Gadatiya, age 24 year, S/o Shri KJrti Gadatiya, R/o village Kewtipali, PS Luisinga, Tahsil & Distt. Balangir (Orissa). (Driver of Truck No. CG-04/G/3933) 2. Shri Sushant Kumar, age 36 yrs S/o Shri fshwar Das, R/o Ward No. 15 PS & Distt. Bargarh (Orissa). (Owner of Truck No. CG-04/G/3933) 3. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Office Krishna Complex, Katchari Chowk, Madina Building, Jaii Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). (Ins. Company of Truck No. CG- 04/G/3933). (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT) (DB: Hon'ble Mr. Raieev Gupta. CJ & Hon'ble Mr.N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present Shri JA Lohani, Advocate for the appellants. Shri HB Agrawal, Sr. Advocatewith Smt. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for respondent No. 3/ The United India Insurance Company Limited. 1:11. • : • ^;;''..-x' ^^^^.^\^ ^""^ ^N^: •r. ••^ww^ \. •-^// •%i%.....: ^ ..;.^^" l^%%%g^?'' •'-.r^.. AWARD (Delivered on ^7/09/2011) Per N.K. Aaarwal. J. 1. By this common award, Misc. Appeal (C) Nos. 1105, 1106 & 1112 of 2010are being disposed of as the common facts & jssues are ihvolved in all these appeals and are arising out of same accident. 2. Brief factsofthecaseare: appellantin M.A.(C) No. 1105/2010 i.e. widow and minor chiidren of deceased Chandrashekhar Sahu and Smt.Geeta Sahu were going from Bargarh to Mahasamund by India Carbearing registration No. CG-04-H-9080 being driven by Chandrashekhar Sahu. On 04.01.2009 at about 12 pm, near Kuhri Padav PS Tumgaon, the said Car was dashed by Truck bearing regjstration No. CG-04-G-3933 coming from opposite direction, being driven by Surendra Gadatiya/respondent No. 1, as a result ofwhich Chandrashekhar Sahu died on 07.01.2009, on account of injuriessustained in the said accident and Smt. Madhuri Sahu and Geeta Sahu sustained multiple serious injurles. 3. Unfortunate Widow and minor children of deceased Chandrashekhar Sahu, by flling claim case No. 47/09 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehide Act,1988 (for short •MV Acf), claimed Rs. 42,96,0007- as compensation for death of deceased jn the said accident against the driver/ownerand insurer of Truck bearing registration No. CG-04-G-3933. ^ •^'^: .\.:-;\; .,i.:t^'^:.'t:!' 1 m ^'m^" • .^ ^ ^-^^•y ^^ 4. Smt. Geeta Sahu, by filing claim case No. 61/09 under Section 166 of the MV Act claimed Rs. 2,30,000/-as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the accident, and Smt. Madhuri Sahu, by filing claim case No. 60/09 under Section 166 of the MV Act daimed Rs. 7,40,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the accident. 5. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: accident took place due to collision between Indica Car and Truck; Chandrashekhar Sahu i.e. driver of Indica Car died on account of injuries sustained in said accident and Smt. Madhuri Sahu and Smt. Geeta Sahu sustained multiple serious injuries; deceased Chandrashekhar Sahu and respondent No. 1 i.e. driver of Truck equally contributedto the cause of accident; assessed Rs. 6,51,685/- as compensation payable to appeltants in claim case No. 47/09 for the death of Chandrashekhar Sahu; Rs. 2,29,100/- as compensation for theinjuries sustained by Smt. Madhuri Sahu in claim case No. 60/09; Rs. 61,520/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by Smt. Geeta Sahu in claim case No. 61/09; deducted 50 percent of the amount of compensation in all the claim cases on account of contributory negligence of deceased Chandrashekhar'Sahu tothe extent of 50 percentand awarded Rs.3,25,843/-in claim case No. 47/09, Rs. 1,14,550/- in claimcase No. 60/09 and Rs. 30,760/- in claim case No. 61/09 alongwith interest @6 percentper annum from the date of application till itsactual payment. Vf^ >.^| j. ^ / 6. Shri JA Lohani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants woutd submit: the Tribunal has erred in holding the deceased Chandrashekhar Sahu guilty of negligence to the extent of 50 percent; in assessing income of the deceased as Rs. 60,000/- only per annum whilecalculating the amount of compensation in claimcaseNo. 47/09; in assessing low amount ofcompensafion in claimcase Nos. 60 and 61 of2009,and thus has fallen in error .inawardinglow amount of compensation in all three daim cases. 7. On the other hand, HB Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 3/The United India Insurance Company Limited would submit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in all daim casesare just and propercompensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe cases and does notcall for anyjnterference. 8. We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the award impugned and records of the Tribunal. 9. We shall first examine correctness or otherwise of the amount of compensation awarded bythe Tribunal in claim case No. 47/09. 10. Admittedly, the accident took place due to head-on-collision between Indica Car and Truck between Bargarh and Mahasamund in National Highway No. 6. As per spot map (Ex. P/15) both the vehicles were on the middle of the road at the time of accident. From the above facts, the only inference which could be drawn is that both the vehicle drivers have equally contributed to the cause of accident. ^>> .•d 11. The plea that Indica Car was stationary at the time of acddent taken by the appellants has rightly been discarded by the Tribunal because to attend natural call nobody will park the vehicle on the middle of the road, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of contributory negligence of deceased Chandrashekhar Sahu i.e. driver of Indica Car and Surendra 0- Gadatiya i.e, driver of Truck in the ratio of 50-50 recorded by the Tribunal. „ 12. We have perused the document Ex. P/30 to P/32 said to be income tax return of the deceased Chandrashekhar. The above documentsare acknowledgement of income tax returns and are not income tax returns. They also do not disclose the source of income of deceased Chandrashekhar. The accident took place on 04.01.2009 and acknowledgements of income tax department Ex. P/30 to P32 are dated 31.12.08,23.12.08 & 08.02.10 respectively. The income tax return bears signature of assessee. Thesame has not been filed nor accounts or balance sheet are filed inorderto show nature &character of business and income. 13. When the matter is examined in thelight of above evidence we do not find any infjrmity in the approach of Tribunal in discarding the income pleadedbythe appellants and in assessing income of the deceased as Rs. 60,000/- per annum on its own estimate. The Tribunal deducted usual 1/3rd of annual jncomeof the deceased towards his personal expenses; assessed dajmant's yearly dependency at Rs.40,000/-; multiplierof 13selected bythe Tribunal is also appropriate in view of dictum of Supreme Court in ^£ case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 ,wherein multiplierof 13 has beenprescribfed for agegroup between 46-50 years. By multiplying claimants annual dependency by multiplier of 13, the amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal is Rs. 5,20,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 22.000/- on other heads, Rs. 1,01,685/- towards medical expenses; Rs. 8000/- towards Ambulance expenses and thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 6,51,6Q5/-. After deducting 50 percent of it towards contributory negligence of the deceased Chandrashekhar, the Tribunal awarded total sum of Rs. 3,25,843/- along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of appljcationtill itsactual payment. 14. Considering overall circumstances pf the case, we do not find any scope of enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 15. Now we shall examine correctness or otherwise of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in claim case Nos. 60 & 61 of2009. 16. The Tribunal, looking to the nature and numbers of injuries sustained by Smt. Madhuri Sahu andSmt. GeetaSahu in the accident, awarded Rs. 2,29,100/~ to Smt. Madhuri Sahu and Rs. 61,520/- toSmt. Geeta Sahu. 17. We have perused the records and we do not find any scope of enhancement in the above amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. However, apparently, the Tribunal has fallen in ^"3C^:3%^ ^'" ^^ ' . "^ ^^•€^y^. yss^'j^ \.:rt^ ^.-^i ^ ^^s <1 u error in deducting 50 percent of amount of compensation awardedto Smt. Madhuri Sahu and Smt. Geeta Sahu on account of contributory negligence of deceased ChandrashekharSahu, inasmuch as indisputably, Smt. Madhuri Sahu and Smt. Geeta Sahu were occupant of Indica Car and were not its driver; the accident had occurred due to collision between Ihdica Car and Truck, therefore, it was a case ofcomposite negligence of both the vehicle drivers. 18. 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 oftwo more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on accountof the composite negligence of those wrongdoers; In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and severglly liable to the injured for payment ofthe entire damages and the injured persori hQS 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. 19. The position of law is now well settled. The Supreme Court in the case of r.0. Anthony v. Karvaman & Others, (2008) 3 SCC 748 has held as under: "6. ^ "Composite negligence" refers to the negligence on the partoftwo or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two more wrongdoers, it is said thatthe person was injuredon account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wronadoer is jointly andseverally liable to the ^^®2^^" MCsS^^. -^ ^ !i^'. ^/ ..^' -^ G, j'- injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proGeedingagainst all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility ofeach wrongdoer separately, npr is it necessary for the Court to determine the extentof liability of each wrongdoer separately." 20.ByapplyingtheratiooflawlaidbytheSupremeCourtinthecase referred hereinabove in the facts and circumstances of the clajm case Nos. 60 & 61 of 2009, in our consjdered opinion, the Tribunal has fallen in error in reducing 50% amount of compensation on account of cpntributory negligenceofdeceased Chandrashekhar. 1 21. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1105/2010 js dismissed. Misc. Appeal |{C) Nos. 1106 and 1112 of 201 O are allowed in part. The appellant in claim case N6. 60/2009 is awarded Rs, 2,29,100/- in place Rs.1,14,550/- and the appellant in claim case No. 61/09 is awarded Rs.61,520/- in place of Rs. 30,760/-. The above amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. Rest oftlieconditionsoftheawardshall remain jntact. 22. The respondent No.S/The United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time to deposit the entire amount of compensation before the concerned Claims Tribunal. 23. No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sahu N.K.Agrawal Judge