C^ ^_ ^^^ -oi- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.( C) N0 \^^ 72011 PETITIONER fNon-ADplicant No.4') The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., T.P.Nagar, Korba, Throgh- its Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Geetanjali Bhawan, Main Road, Korba (C.G.). Versus RESPONDENTS /l. '^ .•°. / ^^ / os/\§4V ^ ^- •^ » ^'// 4»" ^ 2. 3. ^ Note 4. / \^-y Ashwani Kumar, S/o Naresh Kumar, aged about 7 years, Caste Satnami, through guardian and grand father Nirmal Ram, S/o Setram, aged about 56 years, Nirmal Ram, S/o Setram, aged about 56 years, Jamuna Bai, W/o Nirmal Ram, aged about 54 years, All the Respondents no.l to 3 are residents of Chhotekatekoni, P.S. and Tahsil Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.). ............. ..Claimants Ajay Kumar, S/o Bhagwan Singh, r/o Gousala Road-1 Purulia Road, Kunwar Basti, Mango, P.5., Tahsil and Distt. Jamshedpur (Jug Salai), Bihar. Owner of Trucks Jitendra, S/o Nathuni Singh, r/o Katwar, P.0. Shivpur, P.S. Asav, Distt. Siwan, Bihar. .Driver Sanjay Kumar, S/o Hardeo 7. os.' Kumar, r/o village Khakud, Aurangabad, Bihar, Presently r/o Village Tudiya, "Bade Yudhist Anguri Makan "Kirayadar", M.4. M, Distt. Puruliya (W.B.). .Driver The New India Insurance Co., T.P.Nagar, Korba (C.G.). •Insurer PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/ 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION QEINDIA HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.ICINO. 1298 OF 2011 : The Orientaj Insurance Co. Ltd. I'Non-aDDllcarst No.41 RESPONDENTS Versus Ashwani Kumar and others. WRiT PETiTiON UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTSTUTiON OF JND!A (Slnaie Bench: Hon'bie Shri N.K. AaarwaS. J.) Present .: Shri Ratan Pushty, counsei for the petitioner. ORALORDER (Passed on 9th day of March, 2011) Heard on admissson. 2. The instant petition under Articis 227 of the Constitution of india Is preferred by the insurance Company against the order dated 29-09-2010 passed by Additionaj Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Sakti, District Janjgir (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribuna!') in Ciaim Case No.30/2009 whereby the names of respondents No. 5 & 7 vvere permitted to be deieted from the dairn petition. 3. Learned counse! for the petitioner wouid submit: the jnstant accident took piace due to c-oiii'sion of two vehicies. Whether or not the said accident had occurred on account of composlte negEigence of both the vehlcies Is a reievant question to be declded by the Tribunal. The dedsion on the above Issue is also reievant for ths petltioner in as much as if it is held, sccident had occurred due to composite negllgence of both the vehic!?s, the petitioner alone may not be heid responsible for payment of entlre amount of compensation to the daimants. 4. !t is stated that the petitioner had moved an appiicatlon under Section 170 ofthe Motor Vehictes Act, though no such order has been passed on the above appiicatjon, tili date by the Tribunai. ^\^'^%. y£^^\ l i ??• /";".'"."'^'^" "<-;; i :v lk :''"""^ ^/^ ^^ ^^s^" ^. '^€/ I '' : I 'J 5. Be that as it may, in case of composite negiigence each wrongdoer is jointjy and severaijy tiabie to the jnjured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against ali or any ofthem. 6. The Supreme Court in case of T.0. Anthony Vs. Ksrvarnan and others; reported in (2008) 3 SCC 748, has heid in para 6 of the judgment as under: "6. "Composite negligence" refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a rssuit of negiigence on the part of two or more vvrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negiigence of those vvrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointiy and severaiiy iiabie to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against aii or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not estabiish the extent of responsjbiiity of each wrongdoer separateiy, nor is it necessary for the Court to determlne the extent of iiabiijty of each wrongdoer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partfy due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partiy as a result of hls own negllgence, then the negligence on the part of the Injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negllgence. Where the injured is guiity of some negilgence, hjs ciairn for damages is not defeated mereiy by reason of the negllgence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stand reduced In proportion to his contributory negElgence." ^ ;'-"""]IJ ,'-,^f Kvr 7. )n vlew of the above settled position of iaw, i do not find any iilegality in the order impugned warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitutlon of Indla. 8. It Is weii settled princlpte of iaw that this Court, in exercise of its supervisor/ Jurisdictlon under ArticEe 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the csrder by the Court below, except In such cases where perversity, liiegaJJty, irregularity or jurisdictiona! error is writ large on the face ofthe record, whlch is not in the present case. 9. Accordingiy, the petltion being devoid of substance is ilable to be and Is hereby dismissed. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge