@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 85 Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Misc. Appeal No. 592 of 2005 Niranjan Ray Vs. Prem Singh & Others V JUDGMENT For consideration a 3di- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA )1 Sdl- mef Justice: Post for Judgment : U /O2/20 1 1 Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha/J ‘ Judge _/1 7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR ‘ i CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Raieev Gunta, C.J. 8a. Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. M.A. No. 592 of 2005 App‘ellant Niranjan Ray, aged 4O years, S/o. Claimant Gurupad Ray, R/ o Village Subhasnagar (Bhagwanpur), P.S. 85 Tah. Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) Versus P’rem Singh, S/o Balbir Singh, aged about 22 years, Occupation — Driver, R/o Vill. Tapmandi, P.S. Tapmandi, District Sangrur (Punjab) Rachhpal Singh (wrongly mentioned as Rajpal Singh), S/o. Ajay Singh ‘ Occupation— Owner of truck No. P.B.- 13-D 6361, R/o Near Bhatt Petrol Pump B.B.M. Road, Tapmandi, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch— Tapmandi, District Sangrur (Punjab) (Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act) Appearance: Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate for the appellant/claimant. Mr. Shree Kumar Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anand Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Company. A Respfydents District Sangrur (Punj ab) JUDGMENT ( 3 .02.2o1 1) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 81/2004 by the Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Ambikapur vide award dated 5th of February, 2005. v:\ 2 <“é M.A. No. 592 of 2005 (2) The appellant/claimant flled a Claim Petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. claiming compensation of Rs.5,02,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 24.2.2002. It was contended that the appellant was a pillion rider on a Hero Hond‘a motorcycle of one Shankar Goldar which was dashed by the offending truck bearing registration No. P.B.—13-D/6361 on account of rash and negligent driving of the said truck by its driver. The owner and driver of the truck remained eX—parte. The k: insurer of the truck/respondent No.3 denied the contentions of the appellant and pleaded that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the motorcyclist, therefore, the insurer of the truck was not liable to pay any compensation to the appellant. " (3) The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it, held that it was a case of contributory negligence in which the motorcyclist also contributed to the extent of 50%. The Tribunal assessed that the appellant incurred Rs.57,009/- towards his treatment; and he was also entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards pain 8a- suffering; Rs.2,000/— towards special diet 85 attensdant; Rs.3,000/- towards future treatment; and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of income. The Tribunal, thus, held that the appellant was entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.72,000/— as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accidents on 24.2.2002. From the above amount, the Tribunal deducted Rs.36,000/— on account o‘f contributory negligence and ultimately, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.36,000/— to the appellant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The Tribunal also awarded interest at 3 2 / M.A. No. 592 of 2005 the fate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim 1 Petiti‘on till the date of actual payment. (4) iMr. Rahul Mishra, learned counsel appearing ongbehalf of the appellant/claimant, vehemently argued that the Tribunal has wronfgly deducted Rs.36,000/- on account of contributory l negligence. The appellant had never contributed to the accident, therefore, no amount would have been deducted for the 1 contributory negligence from the compensation assessed by the l Claims Tribunal. ~ a (5) On the other hand, Mr. Shree Kumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. (6) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case. (7) In T.O. Anthony -Vs- Karvarnan and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 748 the Supreme Court held that 1n an aoc1dent 1nvolv1ng two or more vehicles where a third party (other than the drivers and/or owners of the vehicles involved) claims damages for loss or injuries, it is said that compensation is payable in respect of the “composite negligence” of the drivers of both the vehicles. But in respect of such an accident, if the claim is by one of the drivers himself for personal injuries, or by the legal heirs of one of the drivers for loss on account of his death, or by the owner of one of u:\ 4 g£ M.A. No. 592 of 2005 the} vehicles in respect of damages to his vehicle, then the issue that arises is not about the “cemposite negligence” of all the l dritzers, but about the “contributory negligence” of “the driver conEcerned. The Supreme Cour-t further held that in such a case, eac;h wrongdoer would be jointly and severally liable to the injured 1 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 determipe the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. i l (8) In case on hand, the appellant was a pillion rider. He was not the driver of either of the vehicles. Therefore, it was a case of “composite negligence” of the drivers of both the vehicles and each wrong doer was jointly and severally liable for payment of the entire damages to the appellant and in no manner it can be said that it was a case of ‘contributory negligence’ in which there was .L some contribution of the appellant. For the foregoing reasons, we are unable to sustain the finding of contribptory negligence recorded by the Claims Tribunal, and the same deserves to be set— aside . (9) Accordingly, we set—aside the finding of contributory negligence and hold that the appellant/claimant is entitled to receive the entire amount of compensation i.e. Rs.72,000/- as assessed by the Claims Tribunal, without making deduction towards the alleged contributory negligence. The Tribunal has .-\ 5 M.A. No. 592 of 2005 33 already awarded Rs.36,000/-. By deducting Rs.36,000/- from R$.72,000/—, the difference comes to Rs.36,000/-, which the appellant is entitled to receive as enhanced amount of 0 compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 24.2.2002. (10)" To avoid further complications and looking to the delay caused in disposal of the Claim Petition as also the claimant’s appe‘aLand that the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company alone 1 cannot be blamed for such delay, we deem it appropriate to quantify the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, which we quantify as Rs.4,000/- in this matter. (11) Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.40,000/- more (Rs.36,000/- as the enhanced amount of compensation and Rs.4,000/- as the amount of quantified interest on the enhanced amount) which he shall received from respondent No.3/United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (12) Respondent No.3/United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is granted 3 months time to deposit this amount befofe the concerned Claims Tribunal. (13) The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. (14) There shall be no order as to the cost. ...xv r Sdl- Chief Justice ‘ vatti