mQH $SER'E' m: CEHé‘E‘TEgéaGARE'i ii"? EELASR§R EEVESEQN $ENCE§ Ci’jRJQM: é-KENELE $HF§§ RAJEEU G13P?A, ILJ. EEN’3LE SE5R5 SUNEL K§JM£R $i%~%%§:‘3~., .5. I‘v‘a‘isc. Anaeai Na. 1&9? af 2W3 Sm? Shashi PiiEay, Widow of Late C§aimam$ Pradeep PiHay, aged about 41 years Sandeep PiiEay {Minor}, SIG Late Prac£eep PHéay, aged abeu? 16 yearg Rahui Piliay (Minor), S10 Lam Praaeep Pi!§ay, aged aboai 4:2 years Minars through their mather $hashi Pi!§&y wEcéow of La%e Pradeep Péh‘ay (appeiiant No.1) m* Chandrawati; widow of late 0 ¢ e- n”. Ahw‘ . Aii éhe appeilants are the R10 Qir Ne. G-1 Pwséfii‘; Sada, Raépui Bisit Ra§pw A gignaiané5 3‘ T ammo, P§§§ay gyad abou€ 64 yams CG; VER$L§S MohaniaL $.10 Jhumaf Ram Rajpui? age££ absut 29 ways ‘i'msk Briver, R/c Govaa‘i, Gavni P8 Shahaggnj, Disit Séhare (MP) Shri Chattuiai; S/o Ghas; Ram Chgwhan, R/G 5/1‘ Malhafar Gem}, indore (MP) (Truck Dwner} 3 The New india Ensuranqe Cerpn Ltd; Hm! LirEe, PS No.3, itafsé, 4511.1? Thmugh Divisian&§ Manager, Madina Euiidinc, Jai§ Rcaa Raépur {13G} §€e$nandents \ N! Migcn Aggegi Harmer $e§iEQn WE 0f Ehe WEmi’ Vehicées gm 1%g .Preseni: : ShriAioki‘Jigam,gounselforihe appeiEant$. Name for respsndents No.1 am. 2. 19 Shri Shreakumar Agrawai. $enior Advocate with 9m Anam Gun a counse! for zeSpondeni No3. é‘EgEh me fo‘iiawing m‘der ef ihe Com wa$ passed by Eggéw §i§g§ta, SE; This is ciaéman‘ts’ apgea§ 1o; emancemeni cf the campe’wga'iien Ezwardw by im Third Add§%i6n i Maia? Accident Ciaims Tribwai’, Rai‘pm’ (for Sheri ‘the ribwai’) v e a are} "§ated C 2GOO sassad m Cla Ca$e NO #539 k5 2} As against ihe compemamn o§ Rs.2’§“65.430{)f- maimed bx; i219 agpeaariig/céaimants, unfamjnaie Widow, mmo? chiiciren amé moi‘hei’ 3f deceasw raaeep Pxhay by ‘Wna Clam petmor maea Secéxéar‘; i86 of the Mme? Vehidas Act, far his dea'i‘h in Ehe metar ‘ J $CC§Q (D E s.2,21,25D/— as compensation aimg with interes? @ 12% par anmm rom thg dug ’5 me fimg 9i n9 drum Gamma m1 a e Gaie o, SCEUE xiiavme‘m‘ 3)ne Emma? 0:1 a ciase gom’ziny cf the enéziiye evidencg Led name m aw; éhat deceawd Pradeeiz ?ii%ay §Eec§ an accgunt of ’ihe injurie3 sus’iainssd by him in %he mam? acsiéem on 68.G§.19Q8; me idem swarm: due to ms“ and neg§igem driving of ihe drivers sf ham ths vehEciss Le ths Tmck bssring registratisn s \Xa VP CE, Eh us3§ ans the Zypsy Jeep bearing {egisivsibiw NOMROS2S2529; ihe extsm‘ or ssgiigenss sf i’ne Truck driver arid me és‘u‘ Jasn dnwsi’ was in ths ram OF ?" . b sestiveiy; as i‘ns vs mi: tn. Q&.Q§.ig§8s ihe Tribunaj awamed a m i “um of $> im (?A abave Truck en the cig‘te af ‘ihe &acic§ent was msured witiir‘; the NEW mdia msurame Company Limifeti. the §n$zjranc& Campamj was 5iab§a t0 pav ?5% 0f the campensatmn as$essed by i‘ne Tribunai. 4) The Tribunai agseSsed {he income 0f ihe dgcaasaa’ at nih Bu der*us?iag ’3/3‘“ of Me inscme cf Eihe deceaseci "iQwards his perscmai expenses. i‘ne ciaimanis’ depenciemy was agses3ea‘ at R3A5541I- may manth. B3; furiher cied‘ucting me sum 0f R34£51f3 which widaw o’i’he {jeceagecé was getting (3?: acceunt of éhe campagsionaie appointment ioss of dependemy was worked out in R.1,4§Gia per manth which wa$ roundeci of? to RS‘LSGOI- per manth. Tha annuad 103$ cf dependeacy, thus; was worked out i0 Rs.18£0G{}l- per annum. By mu¥c§piymg the annua’i i033 0f dapendency of R$.’i8,GSOI- wii‘h thg muiiipéier 0f 35; the cemnerisgaticn was worked cut i0 R$.2,7D‘OG{3I-. By adding further sum 0f Rs26£300z1 under other mews, the mza% campensaiion was werked out t0 Rs.2,98.G§GI-. As the mama of the Truck was found Eiabe i0 ihe exieni of 75% 03" "fine a‘mve amsuni, we ’l bunal direc‘ied fine New Endig m$uyance Samgany i0 i nay g sgm m” RS221 .ZEQI— as. wmmensaikzn i0 the c aiménis. Tha Tribunaf furiher dkeciecf pavmené of Enteves? 0n the 'abcve amamt of campensa‘iiaa‘. 0f R322? ,2601— @ ’§2% per annum from ‘the daie 5f ihe awe: 1 iii! ifhe daie 0f actual gayment 5‘: Shri Amk Nigam, ieameci csunsei fay the appeilant cam‘ineé hiss $ubm ssiens to the deduction of 25% of ihe oomoeosaiion of a £ :he dyiver of me Zyeey‘ Jeee ergo eobmitteo’ that as cieoeased p I". . 1h j «.1 >.. m A \. “N Jm "'K 3 0 l r Re.235;QGGK— asseeeeo: by Ehe {ibunai iowamie the negéigenoe of Pradeep Pillav was only a passenger m the Zypsv Jeep and he was not drlvmg the Zypsy Jeep, the Tribunal has erred m deducting, 25% of the compensation assessed as it woukd be a case of ‘ ‘Composite Neahaence and not ‘Contributory Neoligence’ 6) Shrl Shreekumar Agrawai learned Senior Counsel fo resoondent No 3 New lndla Insurance Company Llmtted could not ‘: ‘ dispute that as deceased Pradeep Plllay was not drivmg any of the, two vehlcles mvolved In the accident for him it would be a case of _ CompOSlte Negllcence and not Contnbutory Negilgence ; .7) The Apex Court while drawrng a ilne of distinction between , the cases of Contnbutorv Negllcence and ‘Comoostte Neglloenc i tin tha case of TO Anthony Vs Kawarnan and others reported in 112908) 3 3C0 748 observed as foliows In paras 6 and 7 L' “6 “Comoostte negligence” refers to the neollgence on _ L g the part of two or more persons Where a person rs A Injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or \ more wroncdoers It Is said that the person was Inlured’ _ V? on account of the comDOSIte neglrgence of those ‘V ’ ' wrongdoers in such a case each wrongdoer Is jomtly _ and severally liable to the Inlured for payment of the , - ; entire damages and the Inlured person has the chalce of: L ' ' proceedlng agamst ail or any of them ln such a case I V the Inyured need not establish the extent of responSIbIlIty g ' l ' ' of each wrongdoer separately, nor Is It necessary tor the 1" ' ”3 If ‘ 'court to determine the extent of liability of each ‘ wrongdoer seoarately On the other hand where a y I person suffers Injury, partlv due to the negligence on the y ’ part of another person or persons and partly as a result I ‘3 'l of his own negligence then the negligence on the part of I ,V ' the Injured which contnbuted to the acoldent Is referred as his contnbutory negligence Where the Inlured Is guil r: to ty _ ef same neg§igence, hi$ ciajm far céamage$ %s mi dafeaied memiy by fegSon of the negligenw on Es part but the damages recoverabie by hm in respect a? ihe ingurées Siam; reduced in prepartian t0 his cankributery negEigance. 7 Therefm’e; when two vehides, afe invoived in an accident; and one of im di’ivers ciaims campewaimn from the oi‘ner driver aiieging: nagiigence, and the other driver denies negiigence 0r ciaims that the injurad ‘c:%aimant h§mseif was negugenii, i‘nen it becomeg nece3$ary to conside? whaiha me injured daima‘m‘: was negiiggnt and if sc, wheiher he w3s soieiy or pamy responSibie fer the aeeideni and the exten‘x 0f hie 1; reepeneibmiy; 't’na’t Le; hie can'icribumry negiigenee. Themi‘oi’e where the injuyed ie h§mee3f periiy Mme, me princige ef “compoeiie negiigence" wiii n0: appéy mar can "ihere be am automaiic inference i'nat the eegiigence wee 5&5Q as has been aesumee‘l in ihie caee. the Tribueei ought ta have examined ihe exiem‘: of .ceniributo‘ry negiigence of ihe appeHant and thereiey avoided Cenfueien between compesite negiigence and eontneutery negiigence, The hign Ceurt hes iaiied t0 correct the eaid error.” Now reyerting t0 the present case, admittediy deceased Pradeep Piiiey wee a. paeeenger in Zypey Jeep which was inveiveci in the aceident and he was not drivirig any 0f the twe vehé e3, the Tribtinai certainty has iaiierz into error in heiding it to be a case 0f ‘Centrébutery Negiigeneet and in deducting 25% of the cempensetion assessed an that basis. We, therefore, set aside tine finding of ‘Centributcry Negligence recerded by the Tribune: ane‘ noici that the eiaimants are entitiee‘ to receive the entire amount 8} / ei «1k- @ 0f ccmpensatisn cf Rs.2,35.QGGI— assessed by the Tribunai from the insurer of Lhe Truck bearing registration NoMP—O9/‘AMGS33 Q: As the Ciaimanis have a§ready received a eum of Rs.2,2i,25§/—, awerded by me Tribunai, i:hey are new entiiied ta receive ihe baiance amount ef Rs.73,756i- frem ihe insurer er' the Truck. 10) Learned ceunsei fer the parties Submitree‘ the? wi’rh a View to avoid any possibie dispute between the parties abeut the period fer which the ciaimente ere entitled to receive intetest 0n the eeeve amount ef Re.73575O/-1 the ameunt of interest may be {quantified in this appeei itseif. it) Considering eii the reievant aeeecte of the matter incinding the deiey in the dispose! 0t the ciaim petition and the present aopeei; the fact that the present appeai was tited by t‘ne ciaimants after about three years of the passing of the award and the fact that the insurance Company atone is not to he blamed for the entire deiay in the matter; we quantify the amount of interest on the above amoont of compensation of Re.73,7’50/- at R321 2501-. 12) For the foregoing reasons, the appeat fited by the appeitants/ ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation is aiiowed in part. The compensation of Rs.272i.,25Q/- awarded by the Tribunai ie enhanced to Rs.2,95,0€i0f— (assessed by the Tribunei) with further quantified amount of interest of Re.2t,250f— on the enhanced x r amount of compensation of Rs.737750/—. 13) Respondent No.3 the New ino’ia insurance Company Limited is granted three monthe’ time for depositing the totai sum of . / ,l / 5N 34 R3957600l- (Rs.7337‘50f- towards enhanced amouni of ccmpensation + Rs.21;25D/- iswards quantified amouni of interes‘i on the enhamed amount of compensation of Rs.?3,?50f—) beferE the acncemmg CEaims Tribunaé. i4} Ne order as to cos€g ; rm- padma Q Sd/— ‘ Sunil Kumar Sinha ; Judge rrr/i/ Sd/j Chief Justice