1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.351/1999 (arising out of Claim No.255/93) NAIMUDDIN V/s SATYA PAL & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT ::::: MAY 26, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri Sandeep Mathur, for appellant. None present for the respondents. BY THE COURT : (Oral) 1. This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of compensation against the order dated August 7, 1998 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sambhar-lake (Jaipur) (for short 'the “the Tribunal) whereby a sum of Rs.75,000/- was adjudged and out of which 60% was ordered to be paid by the respondents on apportionment of the liability of the two offending vehicles. 2. On 10.11.1989 appellant along with other persons was going by car MOB – 6611 from Jaipur to Ajmer and met with an accident near village Dantri by truck HRX – 5488 2 coming from opposite side and thereby the appellant sustained injuries. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant- claimant submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in apportioning the liability and only awarded the 60% of the amount against the respondents while the respondents were joint tortfeasors and the injured has right to claim compensation against any of the offending vehicles as the liability was joint and several. Leaned counsel relied upon in a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in T.O. Anthony v/s Karvarnan & Ors (2008 (3) SCC 748). Learned counsel submitted that the respondents are liable for whole amount of Rs.75,000/- under the award and the award of the learned Tribunal deserves to be modified. 4. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel, it is revealed that the accident took place on account of negligence of the two vehicles and it is a case of composite liability and not of contributory negligence as the appellate did not contribute in negligence. The Apex Court in the Anthony's case (supra) has category observed that “composite negligence” refers to to negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers in 3 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. 5. In view of the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court, the injured who is not assigned any contributory negligence deserves to be paid the whole amount of the award against the respondents. 6. Accordingly the award is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation of Rs.45,000/- is substituted by Rs.75,000/- from the date of this order. The amount so increased shall entail interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the order to be paid within three months failing which interest @ 9% p.a. shall be payable. 7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Guman Singh), J. chauhan/