s€^ w^ f1Ai Smt Meera Thakur, W/o Satyendra Nath Thakur, Aged about 53 years, R/o Purani Basti, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G) it< Dattu Pandurang Jadhav R/o Post Badaiibhoi, Tahsi! - Chandwad, District Nasik (MH) Vllash Basant, S/o Basant UmaSe, R/'o Post Badalibhoi, Tahsil - Chandwad, District - Nasik (MH) United India Insurance C-ompany Limited, Zonal Office, !n front of Kutchary, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) Motor VehicSes Act Present : Shri Sunil Sharma, counsel for the appetlant. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ith The t'ollowing order of the Court was passed by Appellant Smt Meera Thakur is seeking enhancement of .;^s<a ;ompensation awarded by the 4 Additional Motor Accldent Cta •<-'^.:^iUl.i_.^=i .-.~—-T' ''-i» ^' :/<•"' 2 ^KSStK'f^^S ;i:^'^gfl E^t^^S Tribunal, Raipur (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 05.03.2003, passed in Claim Case No.95/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- ciaimed by the appellanVclaimant by fillng a claim petition under Section 1 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 08.10.2001; the Tribuna! awarded a total sum of ,000/- as compensation aiong with interest @ 9% per 'E; annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunai on'a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant Smt Meera Thakur sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident on 08.10.2001; the driver of the Maruti Car in which the claimant vvas travelling and the driver of the other vehlcle Jeep bearin^ registratlon No.MH-15A/3231 contributed to the accident; the extent of contribution to the accident of driver of the Maruti Car and the driver of the other vehicle Jeep was to the extent of 10% and 90% respectiveiy; as the offending vehicie jeep on the date of the acsident was insured vvith the United india Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was iiable to pay 90% of the compensation assessed to the claimant. 4) The.Tribunai considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the ciaimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment awarded Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.25,000/- for the loss of leave for three months; Rs.10,000/- for pain "^. 3 suffering; Rs.10,000/- for the maid servant for three months; and Rs.25,000/- towards the future treatment and other incohvenience on account of the injuries. The Tribunal, thus, assessed a tota! sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation in the case. By deducting 10% of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the contributory negligence of driver of the Maruti Car in which the claimant was traveliing, the Tribunal awarded a tota! sum of Rs.1,35,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident. The Tribuna! further directed payment of interest on the sbove amount of compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of the filina of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Sunil Sharma, learned counsel for the submitted that the Tribunal has erred in deducting 10% of the compensation assessed on account of the alleged contributory negligence of the driver of the Maruti Car holding it to be a case of contributory negligence, whereas, in fact, it was a case of composite negligence as the ciaimant admittedly was not drivinc any of the two vehicies involved in the accident; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- only. 6) Shri Dasarath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 United india Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award aad contended that the compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. /s.^-^-"-:- ^•.>f^4StS-; i^Si^ s!m |B::IS;?iSE!Bjl^' 7) So far as the deduction of 10% of Rs.1,50,000/- by the Tribunal on account of contributory negligence of fhe driver of the Maruti Car in which the claimant was travelling is concerned, the same apparently cannot be legally sustained in view of the dictum of the Apex Court In the case of T.O-Anthony others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 748. As the claimant admittedly was not driving any of the two vehicles, fhe present case would be that of composife negligence and not of contributory negligence. As such, the claimsnt had fhe choice to claim the entire amount of compensation from any of the fwo tort feasor. In this view of the matter, the insurer of the offending vehicle Jeep would be iiable to pay the entire amount of compensation to the ciairnant. 5) On due consideration of the submissiQns of learned counsel fprfhe parties; the number and nature ofthe injuries proved to have been susfained by the claimant in fhe motor accident; fhe amount sroved to have been spent on treatment and in view of the above finding that it was a case of composite negiigence and not of contributop/ negfigence, we are of.the opinion that further award of Rs.20,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation wouid make the compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- awarded by the Tribunai as just and proper compensation in the facts and clrcumstances ofthe present case. 9) The appeal filed by»the appellanVclaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.20,000/- inciusive of interest component ll';!!" i--i,".j' 'v 5 the enhanced amount ofcompensation, in addition tothe sum of i.1,35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 10) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the totai sum of Rs.20,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 11) No order as to costs. __-i———-—— Sd/- Chief Justta Sd7- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge padma \