^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) •r' M.A. (C) N0. 1°1 OF 2009 •SffliSlS.a SfSV'f fSsyS <@ii22U APPELLANT R.a.w*. »""".'^k-l^'. ^s^ ^1^."" -»-^1"::A^.-^r'1 ^^sa^^" .>•"•""' RESPONDENTS Mangluram, S/o Suklal Kalar, aged about 38 years, Occupation- Chaprasi, R/o Village Sureli, Post Hathkarra, Tahsil and District Kanker(C.G.) At Present Kurud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS Mustak Khan, S/o Mahbub Khan, aged about 38 years, R/o Sanjay Nagar Kanker, Tahsil and District Kanker(C.G.) Ravi Tiwari, S/o Shri N.P. Tiwari, aged about 32 years, R/o Jhuniyapara Kanker, Tahsil and District Kanker (C.G.) The National Insurance Company Limited, Through: Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Mobine Mahal, G.E. Road, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (Ci No. 101 of2Q09 Mangku'am. Mustak Khan and ofhers. APPBAL UNDBR SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICL^ ACT,1988 SBs- Hon. Sfari N.K. Aearwal, J. QK-t^ Oilll 2. P.P. Sahu, Advocate for the appellant Shri Soinkant Venna, Advocate for respondents No. 1 & Shri G.V.K.Rao, Advocate for respondent No.3. ORAL_AWARD (16.09.2011) This is claiiaant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by fhe Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tnbunal, Dhamtari (for short ffae Tribunal') vide award dated 21.10.2008 in Claim Case No. 126/2004. 2. As agamst the clatm of Rs.7,00,000/- claimed by the appeUant/claimant by filing application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Actl for fhe injuries sustained by him tn (he motor accident dated 31.03.2002, the Tnbunal has awarded a sum of Rs.49,901/- as compensation along with interest at 6% per annum fi-om the date of application till its actual payment. @ 3. The leamed Tnbunal, on a close scruttny of the evidence led, held: fhe accident took place due to coUision bet\veen Jeep bearing registration No.M.P.63-T/0005 and Jeep bearing registration No.C.G.19-T/0011; appellant Mangluram i.e. occupant ofJeep bearmg No. M.P. 63-T/0005 sustatned injuries in the said accident; both the Jeep drivers equaUy contributed to fhe cause ofaccident; respondent No.3 i.e. the National Insurance Company Limited Uable for payment of compensation as it coLdd not estabUsh violation of policy conditions; assessed compensation of Rs.99,802/- payabte to the appeUant due to ttie tnjuries sustained by htm in the above accident; reduced fhe above aiuount by 50% towards contributory negligence of driver of Jeep bearing No. C.G. 19-T/OO 11 for want of his iinpleadiuent tn the case; 'and awarded Rs.49,901/- as compensation to the appellant/clatmant along wifh interest at 6% per annum from the date of claiia application tUl its actual payment. 4. Shri P. P. Sahu, leamed counsel appearing for the appeUant would submit: the appeUant was occupant of the Jeep bearing No. M.P.63-T/0005 and was not its driver; fhe case is of composite negligence of both fhe Jeep drivers and in such case the appeUant is free to initiate claim petition against all or any of them and hls claim cannot be defeated or apportioned tor want of tmpleadment of otfaer vehicle and tfae Tribi.inal has fallen in error ui deducting 50% amount of compensation awarded by it towards negBgence of other Jeep driver. 5. On the ofher hand, Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for respondents No. 1 8s 2 and Shri G.V.K.Rao, Advocate for respondent No.3 supported fhe award impugned and submitted that ui fhe facts and circumstances of fhe case amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, which needs no mterference. 6. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned including fhe record of fhe Tribunal. 7. Coiaposite negligence refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Wliere a person is tnjured as a result of negligence on the part of two more wrongdoers, it is said fhat the person was injured on accoiint of fhe composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is joinfly and severally liable to fhe injured for payment of the entire damages and fhe tnjured person has the choice of proceedu^ agatnst aU or any of them. In such a case, the mjured need not establish fhe extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessarv for fhe Court to determtne the extent of liabilitv of each wrongdoer separately. On fhe other hand where a person siifl'ers injury, partly due tb the negligence on fhe part '-;%. ,. '^^' 4 of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence on fhe part of ffae injured which contributed to fhe accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guUty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negfigence on his part but the damages recoverable by hun tn respect of the uyuries stand reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. 8. Indisputably; tfae appellant was occupant of Jeep bearing No. M.P.63-T/0005 and was not its driver; the accident had occurred due to collision bettffeen both fhe Jeeps, therefore, it was a case of composite negligence of bofh the Jeep drivers and it was not necessary for fhe appeUant to claun corapensation against fhe ofher Jeep driver also and fhe amount of compensation cannot be deducted on account of alleged negligence of other Jeep dnver not. impleaded in fhe case. t- 9. The position of law is now well settled. The Supreme ^^w»" CoLirt in fhe case of T.0. Anthony v. Karvarncm, & Others, ^\rv 3 SCC 748 has held as under: "6. "Composite negligence" refers to the negEgence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on fhe part of two niore wrongdoers, it is said that fhe person was injured on account of the composite negligence of tfaose wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is joinfly and severaUy liable to fhe tnjured for payment of the entire dam.ages and fhe injured person has fhe ^ choice of proceediag agatnst all or any of fhem. In such a case, the injured need not establish fhe extent of responsibUity of each wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary for fhe Court to detennine fhe extent of UabiUty ofeach wrongdoer separately." By a.pplying fhe ratio of law 'laid by fhe Supreme CoLirt ^" *a>,. in fhe case referred hereinabove in fhe facts and cu'cum.stances of fhe case, tn my considered opinion, the Tribunal has fallen in error in reducing 50% ainount of compensation towards aUeged negligence of ofher Jeep driver not unpleaded tn the case. ^ >tte^ ti- For the reasons mentioned heretnabove, fhe appeal is '"^' allowed m part. The appellant is awarded Rs.99,802/- in place Rs.49,901/- awarded by the Tribunal. The above aiROWit shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annuia from fhe date of application till its actual payinent. Rest of the conditions of fhe award shall rematn intact. t l^. The respondent No.S/the National Insurance Coinpany ,(""'. ^'^w" Limited is granted fhree months ticae to deposit fhe entire ^ auiount of compensation before fhe concerned Claiins Tribunal. t- 3 No order as to costs. ^-' N.K, Judge