1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.741/1999 (arising out of Claim No.437//98) SMT. SANTOSH & Ors V/s SHRI MAHMUD SHEKH & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::::: MAY 27, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri Intzar Ali, for claimant-appellants. Shri Vinod Tyagi, for M/s National Insurance Company BY THE COURT : (Oral) 1. This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by claimant appellants, the dependents of deceased Krishan Kumar for enhancement of compensation against the order dated March 9, 1999 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the “the Tribunal) whereby a sum of Rs.1,95,000/ was awarded by way of compensation. The appeal has also been preferred on the point that the appellants are entitled to recover 100% of the award amount instead of 50% from the respondents on the principle of liability being joint and several to all the joint tortfeasors. 2 2. The accident took place on 10.1.1997 when truck RJ 14 G 6716 dashed against stationary truck RRY 7518 of the dead of night and deceased Krishan Kumar traveling in truck RJ 14 G 6716 as 'Khalashi' sustained injuries and expired. The learned Tribunal after adjudication came to the conclusion that both the drivers of the vehicles were negligent and therefore the liability of each was apportioned 50% and thereby the respondents were saddled with 50% of the liability only. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants at the very outset submitted that the deceased being of 30 years of age, the learned Tribunal failed to adopt multiplier of 18 in place of 14 under the Second Schedule to the M.V. Act. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Tribunal should have awarded whole of the amount of the award against the respondents as they are not only liable for 50% but for the entire amount on the principle of joint and severally liability. Learned counsel relied upon in T.O. Anthony v/s Karvarnan & Ors (2008 (3) SCC 748). 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the award passed by the learned Tribunal and contended that the 3 parties relating to other offending truck were not made parties in the claim petition by the claimants and as such a valuable right of the respondents has been lost and in such a case the respondents should not be saddled for the entire liability under the award. 5. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel and going through the award as well as the record of the case, it is revealed that the deceased was a young man of 30 years and as such the multiplier of 18 should have been adopted by computing the dependency of the deceased as per Second Schedule of the M.V. Act. Therefore, the amount of award deserves to be enhanced by computing on the above basis. As regards composite liability, it is well settled and the Apex Court in Anthony's case (supra) has category observed that “composite negligence” refers to to negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers and they are jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceedings against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of liability of each wrong doer separately. 4 6. In view of the above legal position, the entire amount under the award is recoverable from the respondents. Accordingly, on computing the compensation on adopting multiplier of 18, the following amount can be awarded : 2000 x 12 x 18 = Rs.4,32,000/- 7. Accordingly, the award is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation of Rs.1,95,000/- is substituted by Rs.4,32,000/- from the date of the appeal i.e. 21.4.1999. The amount so increased shall entail interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order to be paid within three months failing which interest @ 9% p.a. shall be payable. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with the modification as indicated hereinabove. (Guman Singh), J. chauhan/