Muneshwar Sai Paikra vs Sardar Singh Bhatiya and Others

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—This is claimant''s appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (for short, the Tribunal'') vide awards dated 29.08.2003, passed in Claim Case No. 10 of 1999.

As against the compensation of Rs.24,29,000/- claimed by the appellant/ Claimant, unfortunate husband of deceased Sunita Bai, by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 14.07.1997, when the Bus bearing registration No. M.P. 26-C-5616 in which the deceased was travelling was dashed by the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. M.P. 26C-4631, resulting in her instantaneous death on the spot itself, the Tribunal though assessed the compensation at Rs.1,37,000/-, awarded only Rs.68,500/- to the claimants holding it to be a case of ''contributory negligence'' wherein the drivers of both the vehicles i.e. Bus and the Truck equally contributed to the accident.

Shri A.N. Bhakta, learned counsel for the appellant advanced a solitary submission that the Tribunal has erred in holding it to be a case of ''contributory negligence'', whereas in fact, it was a case of ''composite negligence'', and as such, the claimant was entitled to get the entire amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal from the insurer of the Truck.

Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the tribunal has rightly held it to be a case of ''contributory negligence''.

Shri U.K.S. Chandel, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 also supported the award.

It 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 drivers of both the vehicles, i.e. Bus Even if the drivers 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 negligence''.

The Apex Court while considering the distinction between the cases of ''contributory negligence'' and ''composite negligence'' in the case of T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan and Others, , observed in para 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 or 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. 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 this own negligence, then the negligence on the part of the 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 this part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stand reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence.

In view of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court, in a case of ''composite negligence'' the choice is with the claimant to claim compensation from both the tort-feasors or any one of them.

Now reverting to the present case, if the claimant has chosen to claim compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of the Truck alone, without impleading the driver, owner and insurer of the Bus in the claim petition, the Tribunal could not have legally denied whole of the compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal 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 compensation assessed solely on the ground that the driver, owner and insurer of the Bus were not impleaded by the claimant.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant is allowed in part. While affirming the assessment of the compensation of Rs.1,37,000/- by the Tribunal, the claimant is held entitled to receive whole of the amount of compensation of Rs.1,37,000/- from the insurer of the Truck involved in the accident.

As the appellant/claimant has already received 50% of the compensation assessed by the Tribunal i.e. Rs.68,500/- along with interest due thereon from respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the Truck, the appellant? Claimant now is entitled to receive further amount of Rs.68,500/- as compensation.

Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimant is entitled to receive interest on this balance amount of Rs.68,500/-, the amount of interest on the this amount may be quantified in this appeal itself.

Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we quantify the amount interest on the balance amount of Rs.68,500/- at Rs.6,500/-.

Respondent No.3- the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months'' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.75,000/-(Rs.68,500/- towards the balance amount of compensation + Rs.6,500/-towards quantified amount of interest on the amount of Rs.68,500/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal.

No order as to costs.