{EWWEgN EtNC$ E‘mwg‘LE Q R3 Fig ‘EtV iniWTfA, {w} & %’w E $%R2RL wF‘M‘JHa? .3 iECEEtNEZ ii-S {3 §émm re WLA Nag'gé m“ 29%) i‘ilunesmwr 'Sai Paikra wan e? Bjeaklwcu, vamt: - {(EFW’ai aged dbGUu '27 wars raamgm a? ‘jmage am 30¢: Cwmoanar Pa Kamabe 913x Ra3garmCG) RG§$i§$ Sarchr fmmh Ehatwa sGn of Qwnéa» Vang”, 54m, acw amp w- Win awner, reQdani 5f Buss Smd Pa'i‘thaigaon Bistt Raigarh (CG) 5am Ram Q Bayu Ram son 0f Ema Sal, Gas - Urasn adea aboui 4C veam occupauan ~VDm/er e went of Ch‘drapcira Pawaigam Disi Raxgah (L,C} The New hd‘a lnwmncp CG Lick, Regiat :ad O ice ar'd head Gmce ’rhe New mdaa msmance Bu$mg 87' Mahaima Qandh‘ Fm, Mumbai 4SGGG1, through. t Lesa? Office, Raiggm (CG) kE9$mc¢m§¢m§ wggagiammm $§n§a§ m6?! $9ctim‘g W3 9f Em Wymr V€§H$E§ ski $$$ Pregani : orm AN 3mm) wms steHne ameHam 8m UKS Chandeli Gaunse? fay mwwdents N04 and La $bn SudhirAaWwai caunqg far r spandPnt Ne 3 QNEEE mam Navamher, Ema; 3‘=@s a E RT Q? €§%-§£"§'T§§$AR§~3A§ §§iA EJR @ The foliowmg order of the Court was passed aleev Gupta, C T p of e his Is ciaimants apeal for enhancement th ct ent ompensaion awarded by the First Addmonat Motor Acctd laims Tribunat Raigarh (for short ‘the Tnbunai) vrde awar dated 29 8 2003 psed In Claim Ce No 0 f 199 2) as as 1 o 9 t o rotarmed b f. e appeant/ claimant unfortunate husband of deceased Sunl m petition under Section 166 of ot eicles Act for her death In the motor accrdent on 14 07 19 hen the Bu bea :g’ egistrataon No M P2-C ? e, ythe offendm vehic eath on the pot itsetf, the Tnbuna thou ssessed the Omp’ensation' t Rs‘1,37,DOO/—,_ awarded onl s 533/— to te cramants’hordin it to be bt h hcles r e usand e Truck equall contributed to the acci n N Bhakta learned counsel for the apelta vance a solrtarv submissmn that the-Tnbunat has erred lding rt to be a case of contributor nelience wheras r t, It was a case of compOSIten-elrence and as uch t s enle o get he entire amount of compensatro rrbunal from the msurer of h rr Sudhtr Agrawal learned counsel for resondent N he New Indra Insurance Company Llmrted on the othe L d s t gh a o a y R‘as 1 i h ig a case 5r contriuory negligence wherein the drivers of both te vei B th y dent Sh A pt add m ho y gg e n ;c gg s he a ttld t t ny T te Truck Sh p 3! V 4 t ha by R J C d As against the cmpensation of Rs 24 29 GOO/ y th ll ta Bat by frhng a clai the Mor Vh 97 t w 6 5616 d d b le; ~\ @ supported the award and contended that the Tribuna! has right!y held it to be a case of ‘contributory negligence’. 5) Shri UIK.S. Chandel, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 also supported the award. ‘8) 'lt is not in dispute that the claimant’s wife Sunita Bai was only a‘ passenger in one of the two vehicles i.e. Bus. Even if the driver's of both the vehicles i‘e. Bus and the Truck equally contributed to the accident, for the deceased who was merely a passenger in the Bus it would be a case of ‘composite ' l negligence’. 7) The Apex Court While considering the distinction between :the cases of ‘contributory negligence’ and ‘composite negligence' fin the case of T.O. Anthony Vs. Kawaman and Qthers, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 748, observed in para 6 : “6 ”Composite negligence” refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons Where a person rs 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 compostte negligence of those wrongdoers. in such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the ientire damages and the injured person hasthe‘ choiCe ”of proceeding against ail or any of them. in such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of . , responsibility of each ‘wrongdoer separately, nor is its , necessaryjfor 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 l d t l ‘ negligence on the part of another person or persons, z i l ‘ jand partly as a result of his own negligence, then he ‘ mvartn : '21:“ * ’ t j M - li ed neggence'on the part Of the injured Which contribut to the acCident is referred to as his contributery hegltgence. Where the injured is giiiity of‘ Som ' negiigence his claim for damages is not defeated mereiy by reason of the negligence on his part but th Vdamages recoverable by him in resoect of the injurie stand reduced in proportion to his - contributor negiioence i 8). in view o the above quoted dictum of the Apexrourt,‘ in‘a 7‘ ‘ f ‘C case of ‘composite .negiigence’ the choice is with theciaimant to claim compensation from both the tort—feasors or any oe of‘ n them i 9) Now reverting to the present case if the claimant has ‘ l chosen to claim compensation from the driver owner and insurer l ‘of the Truck alone Without impleading the driver owner and insurer of the Bus in the clalm petition the Tribunal could not have legally denied whole of the compensation to the claimant The iribunal apparently has fallen into error in holding it to be a case of contributory negligence so far as the deceased is concerned and deducting 50% of the compensatton assessed solely on‘the ground that the driver owner and insurer of theBus were not impieaded by the claimant .‘w 10). For the foregoing reasons the appeal flied by the appellant/ claimant is allowed in part While affirming the ' assessment of the compensation of RS1 37 000l- by the Tribunal the claimant is held entitled to receive whole of the .r 7© e e s y - Tuc nvoivd n‘e accdet. rk ie ith in A t t i ld d 50% f 11) s he appellan/ clamant has areay receive o the mensatiOn ass'esed by the Trbunal L Rs.6850/— alng cop ‘s i ei. ,‘0 o with it‘j d th f pdt N N dia nerest ue ereon rom resonen o.3 the ew in Ié Cp Lid th k th nsurance omany mite, e insurer of the Truc, e apii titd t i ft of Rs.68,- as comensaion. 5OQ/ pt th pt bittd th w Learned counsel rfor e aries sume at with a Vie o avoid n ssible ispue eween e pariesabou t t ay po dt bt th tt he ‘ pi h th i ttd t i tet tis " erod fortwhic e clamant is enile o receve inres on h th m f inteti'O this ‘“ aount " o‘ resn peianticlaim‘ant now is enle o receve urher amount €1 2) moun o 68 0 sects of te matter w ap h , e 'nt f ntees on he balce amunt of i v c irt t an o 'o the New nca nsuance COmpany ndent No 3- alii ir mited i rante tree m i s d h onths time for depostting the total sum f Rs 75 000/— (Rs 68 500/- towards the balance amount f o o compensation + Rs 6 500l- towards quantified amount of interest n ge amoun o Rs:0'-, eoreoe concernin aim o th t f 68,50/) bfth g Cls i Sd/ .o t — RL Jhanwar o rer a to c , N Od s osts. Sdl- ‘i Chlef Justlce ‘1 #J i at f R 0/- i \ ‘