/, cm?” .. O‘L' IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.( c ) N0. mé 2011 PETITIONER /, WNME BERSM The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., T.P.Nagar, Korba, Throgh— its Senior Divisional Manager, Divisionai Office, Geetanjaii Bhawan, Main Road, Korba (C.G.). Versus RESPONDENTS / 1. Daduram, S/o Tiharu, aged about 60 years, Caste Satnami, Manu Bai, W/o Daduram, aged about 55 years, Shani Kumari, D/o Khikram, aged about 14 years, Ranjani Kumari, D/o Khikram, aged about 12 years, Ku. Manika , D/o Khikram, aged about 08 years, Kumari Suman, D/o Khikram, aged about O8 years, Respondents No. 3 to 6 are minors, represented through grand father Daduram (Respondent No.1) , S/o Tiharu, AII are residents of Faraswani, Tahsil and P.S. Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.). Ajay Kumar, S/o Bhagwan Singh, r/o Gousaia Road—1 Puruiia Road, Kunwar Basti, Mango, P.S., Tahsil and Distt. Jamshedpur (Jug Saiai), Bihar. Jitendra, S/o Nathuni Singh, r/o Katwar, P.O. Shivpur, P.S. Note : “02’ Asav, Distt. Siwan, Bihar. /9. Sanjay Kumar, S/o Hardeo Kumar, r/o village Khakud, Aurangabad, Bihar, Presently r/o Village Tudiya, “Bade Yudhist Anguri Makan “Kirayadar”, M.4.M, Distt. Purullya (W.B.). 10. The New India Insurance Co., T.P.Nagar, Korba (C.G.). PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/ 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. (C) No. 1299 OF 2M1 The Orienta! insurance Co. Ltd. Versus RESPONDENTS Daduram and Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri N.K. Aqarwal, J.) Present : Shri Ratan Pushty, counselforthe petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 9‘“ day of March, 2011) Heard on admission. 2. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the Insurance Company against the order dated 29-09-2010 passed by Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Sakti, District Janjgir (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunai’) in Claim Case No.28/2009 whereby the names of respondents No. 8 & 10 were permitted to be deleted from the claim petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner wouid submit: the instant accident took place due to collision of two vehicies. Whether or not the said accident had occurred on account of composite negligence of both the vehicles is a relevant question to be decided by the Tribunal. The decision on the above issue is also relevant for the petitioner in as much as if it is held, accident had occurred due to composite negligence of both the vehicles, the petitioner alone may not be heid responsible for payment of entire amount of compensation to the claimants. 4. it is stated that the petitioner had moved an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, though no such order has been passed on the above application, till date by. the ‘i Tribunal. k) 5. Be that as it may, in case of composite negligence each wrcngdoer is jointly and severaiiy 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. 8. The Supreme Court in case of 120. Anthony Vs. Karvaman and others; reported in (2G08) 3 SCC 748, has held in para 6 of the judgment as under: “6 “Composite negligence" refers to the negiigence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or 'more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoersi In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally iiable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured ' person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. ln such a case, the injured 'need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separateiy, nor is it necessary for the Court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence on the part ofthe injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stand reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence.” 7‘ 1n View of the abave sewed position of iaw, ! do not find any megality in the order impugned warranting interference of this Court under Articie 227 of the Canstitution of indie. 8. it is well settled principie of iaw that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory juriediciion under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 9. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 5, M MM Sdl- N,K. Agrawal Judge Kvr