HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT BILASPUR A'PéELLANT Misc. Appeal No. W2 of 20M Smt. Khorbahrin Bai VERSUS Tulas Ram and others RE$PCNDENT$ Zé 3.2011 Sd/— NK Agrawal Judge 2g 920'“ 1 AWAR§ FUR CONSIDERATIGN " HcN’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA cmef Jus‘ice‘ For Pronouncement of Award g7 .092011 Sd/— N.K. Agrawal Judge V HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL N0. 102 of 2004 a 1 APPELLANT Smt. Khorbahm’n Bai, Wif6 of Lt. Shri Khorbahara Dewangan, Aged about 53 years, Resident of Saltoshi Nagar, RS. Tikrapara, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.) ’ Versus 1. Tulas Ram, San of Shri Pankhu Ram, Truck Drivar, Resident of Village Bekma¢ Post Bagbahra, Tehsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) Truck No. CP’I‘ 2702 Through Shri Vinod Pandey, Son of Shri M.L. Pandey, Near Chhattisgarh College, Bairan Bazar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Vinod Pandey, Son of Shri M.L. Pandey, Truck Onwer (Truck No. CPT 2702) Resident of Near’ Chhattisgarh College, Bairan Bazar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The United India. Insurance Company Limited, Kutchery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Police Station Qty Kotwali, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Truck No. OPT 2702). 4. Jagdish Son of Shri Pratap Singh, Post Charama, Tehsil Kanker District Kanker, Local Address — Sardar Ravinder Singh, Son of Shri Ratan Singh, Truck Owner, Bastar Road, Dhamtari, Tehsil and District. Dhamtari, Truck Nol CPR 8879) Sardar Ravinder Singh, Son of Shri Ratan Singh, Truck Owner, Resident of Bombay Garage, Bastar Road, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (Truck No. CPR 8879). ‘: DEFENDENT$ 6. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Kutchery Chowk, Jajl Road, Raipun, RS‘ City Kotwali, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (insurance Company of’I‘ruck No. CPR 8879) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES t PRESENT ‘- Shri S.S.Rajput, counsel for the appellant. Shri I-I.B.‘ Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri H.P.Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.6. AWARD (Passed on £7 -9—20 l 1) Per N.K. Agarwal, J. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the lst Additional Motor Accidents Claims ’1‘1‘ibunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in claim case No. 39/2003 vide award dated 06.08.2003. G 2; As against compensation of Rs.4,12,400/— claimed by the wife and one minor daughter of deceased — Khorbahara Dewangan by filing claim application under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for his death in the motor accident on 16.11.1984, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.90,400/— as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. ACT Comm: Hon. Shn‘ Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 8a u . Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J \i\§ 3, The Tribunal, on a Close scrutiny of the evidence led, heid: the accident had occurred due to composite negligence of driver of Truck bearing registration No.C.P.T.2702 and drlver oi Truck bearing regstration No C P R 8879 deceased Kh01 bahara died on account of injuries sustained by him 1n the said accident assessed and awarded Rs.90,400/— as i‘ ‘ compensation to the claimants along With interest at 6% per annumifrom the date of filing of claim application till its actual payment holding respondents No. 1,2, 4 85 5 liable for payment of compensation. 4 4. Shri S.SiRajput, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit: the Tribunal has erred in \ O exonerating the United Indian Insurance Company Limited i.e.? insurer of the Truck bearing No. C.PIT.2702 from its liability to pay compensation inasmuch as deceased was sitting as gratuitous passenger in the Trucks bearing No. ORR. 8879 and for other offending vehicle iie. Truck bearing No. C.P.T. 2702, he was a third'party. 5. On the other hand, Shri H.B.Ag1‘awal, learned Senior Counsel With Smt. Meera Jaiswal, appearing for respondent No.3 supported the award and submitted: in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the United India Insurance Company Limited from i‘ its liability to pay compensation and the award does not can for any interference. a 6‘ ‘ We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perhsed the record of the Tribunal including the award impugned. ’7. ‘Vlndisputa'bly, deceased Khorbahra Dewangan was sitting in the Truck bearing N0.C.P.R.8879 as a gratuitous passenger and respondent No.6 — the New India Insurance Tompany Limited has not issued any insurance cover, covering the risk of gratuitous passengers sitting in the Truck by entering into special contract with the owner of the vehicle by charging extra premium therefor. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act do not enjoin any statutory liabihty on the owner of the vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any gratuitous passenger sitting in the goods carriage vehicle and the insurer would have no liability therefor. Therefore, the .. G Tribunal was right in exonerating respondent No.6 - the New lndia Insurance Company Limited from its liability to pay compensation. 8. However, the deceased was a third party so far as other Truck bearing No.C.P.T.2702 is concerned. Indisputably, the accident had occurred due to composite negligence of both the above Trucks. In the case of composite negligence, the claimants are free to initiate claim petition against all or any of them. Composite negligence refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person 1S injured as a result of negligence on the part of two more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for pax‘ment 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 determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. In such a case, each 9. The position of law is now well settled. The Supreme Court in the case of T.O. Anthony v. Kmaman & Others, (2008) 3 SCC 748 has held as under: “6. “Composite negligence” refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the‘part of two more wrongdoers, it is said that the‘person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured 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 determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately.” 10. Therefore, deceased being third party so far as other vehicle i.e. Truck bearing No.C.P.T.2702 is concerned and the United India Insurance Company Limited i‘e. inSurer af the above vahicle did not prove any violation of policy conditions, the Tribunal has certainly erred in exonerating respondent No.3 — United India insurance Company Limited from its liability to pay compensation on the premise, deceased was sitting as a gratuitous passenger in the Truck bearing Noicé‘P‘R3879. The abdve finding, being contraiy to law, deserves to be and is hereby set aside. il. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal is aliowed in part. Respondent No.3 - United indian Insurance Company Limited is held jointly and severally liable for payment oi‘ compensation to the appellant along with respondents No. 1, 2, 4 85 5. 12. The award is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the conditions of the award shall remain intact. The appellant is free to execute the award against all or any of 9 them . 13. No order as to costs. Sdl- Chief Justice Sid/- N.K.Agrawal _ \ " Judge