HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BtLASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHR1 SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. APPLICANT CLAIMANT RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS I.A.No.703of2003 Rambilash Sinha, S/o Late Itwari Sinha, Aged about 42 years, Occupation Govt. Servant, R/o A.Q. - 12, Science College Colony, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (CG) VERSUS Manish Kumar Shah, S/o Uttam Shah, Occupation - Mini busowner, R/o E-56, Sector -2, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tah.& Distt. Raipur The Nationat Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, IVtobin Mahal, G.E. Road, Raipur (CG) Misceilaneous Appeat underSection 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act1988 Present: ShriAdityaKhare,Counselfortheappellant. Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Raj Awasthi, Counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (3rd March, 2010) : The following-.»order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant Ramibilash Sinha has preferredthis appeal against •^* '.:...-• . ; . • ' the impugned award dated 20i06.2003,| passect by Fourth Additional Motor Accidgnt Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim CaseNo. 108/2002, whereby the appellant's claim petition was dismissed. 2) Claimant Rambilash Sinha claimed - compensation of Rs.25,50,000/- by filing a ctaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for theinjuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 30.06.2001, when the Minibus bearing registration No.MP 23 J/0118 in which he was travelling with his son Shekhar Sinha, met with an accident and overturned due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, resulting in multiple''iSerious injuries to both ofthem. 3) The owner and insurer of the offending vehicle Minibus contested theclaim and denied their liabilityto pay compensation to the claimant. The insurer took the further plea that the claimant has mentioned a distorted version of the accident in the claim petition. 4) The clalmant examined himself as AW-1 in support of his claim. The owner and insurer of the offending vehicle Minibus did not examine any witness in rebuttal. 5) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that claimant Rambilash Sinha sustained injuries on 30.06.2001; it could not be established that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Minibus; in fact, the accident occurred due to the negtigence of the driversof both the'vehiQles i.e. Maruti Van and Minibus; as it \yas a case of "contributQry negligence' the claim petition suffered from defect of non-impleadment of ddyer/owner and insurer of Maruti Van; the B claimant miserably failed in establishing that the injuries said to have been sustained by him in the accident resulted in any permanent disability; the daimant could not establish the medical expenses incurred by h»mon his treatment. The Trit)unal,therefore, dismissed the appellant's claim petition vide impugned award dated 20.06.2003. 6) Shri Aditya Khare, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the appellant's claim petitipn holding that it was a case of 'contribytory negiigence' and the claimant did not implead the owner/driver and insurer ofthe other vehicle Maruti Van. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that even if the claimant did not produce any bills and vouchers about the medical expenses, the Tribunal ought to have awarded some amount towards medical expenses on its own estimate. 7) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.2, The National Insurance Company Ltd., fairlyand frankly conceded that the Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the appellant's claim petition holding it to be a case of 'contributory negligence', as in fact it was a case of 'composite negtigence' so Tarthe claimant is concerned. 8) Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.1; owner ofthe Minibas supported the award. 9) The Tribunal in para 12 of the impugned award held that the contents of the medical papers (Ex.-P/3), established that the ciaimant on 30.06.2.001 sustained injuries. The Tri6unal fell into error in holding that it was' a case of 'c;ontributory negligence' and U - l.iiii[L,.i....lL.l.J -*i& as such.the driver, owner and insurer of the Maruti Van were necessary parties to the claim petition. 10) As admittedly the claimant was a passenger in the Minibus and he was not driving the Minibus at the time oflhe accident, it witl be a case of 'composite negligence' and not a case of 'contributory negligence' so far he is concerned. tn a case of 'composite negligence', the option .is always with the claimant to claim compensation from any of the parties contributing to the accident. As such, the Tinding recorded by the Tribunai tliat the appellant's claim petition was liable to be dismissed on account of non-impleadment of the driver/owner and insurer of the Maruti Van cannot be legally sustained. 11) In such a situation, ordinarily, we would have remanded the matter to the Tribunal for deciding the appellant's claim petition afresh, but considering that the accident in the present case occurred in the year 2001 and a period of 9 years has elapsed, we are of the opinion that it would not be a proper exercise of discretion to remand the matter to the Tribunal at this distance of time. We, therefore, propose to consider the appellant's claim petition ourselves on the basis of the material available in the records'. 12) The claimant in para 16 of his deposition before the Tribunal admitted that his income was not adversely affected onaccount of the Injuries sustained by him in the mbtor accident. Though the fact ofthe ciaimant having sustained injuries in the-wotor accident is established, the extent/of expenses incurred by the claimant on t.^^-) U Jl.,1 ll,I..J,,..ll,.l..L...., p . /• "':% i "ia his treatment has not been established as no bills and vouchers were produced before the Tribunal. 13) In this state of evidence, we are of the opinion that award of lump-sum of Rs.15,OOQ/-, inclusive of interest component would be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14) For the foregolng reasons, the appeal filed by the appellanVclaimant is allowed. By setting:asidethe impugned award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant is awarded a lump-sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for the injuries susfained by him in the motor accident on 30.06.2001 . 15) Respondent No.2/National Insurance Company Limited is granted three months time for depositing the total sum of Rs.15,000/- before the Tribunal. 16) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justke; SdA . ;^ Sunii Kumar Sinha —^ Jildge subbu