Partly allowed

Parminder Singh and Ors. v. Rakesh Kumar Yadav and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC14 Mar 2010MA/292/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed appellants in a motor accident claim, holding that since the accident involved composite negligence of two vehicles, the sued bus owner/insurer was liable for full compensation. Reversed lower tribunal's 50% reduction, ordering payment of balance compensation and interest.

What did the court decide?

Appellants granted Rs. 90,000 compensation and Rs. 10,000 interest to be paid by insurer within 3 months, failing which interest at 6% per annum applies.

Parminder Singh and Ors. Vs Rakesh Kumar Yadav… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

¶1

H IGH CO URT OF CHHARTTISGAH, BPR‘ILASU

¶2

t CORAM: H’blone Shr i Raieev Gtupa, C.J. & H on’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha , J.,

¶3

Msc.i Appeal No. 292 of 2000.

¶4

Parminerd Sinhg & others

¶5

Vs.

¶6

r Rshake Kum ar Yadav & iothers‘

¶7

JUDMENGT

¶8

HNO BLE SHR I JU STICE RAJEEV GU PTA i)

¶9

For considraticen S/dSum^Kumar9mm a1 Iudge \ \

¶10

Sdl— Chief Justice

¶11

p /, p Post for Jdgument :I/ozojsgm

¶12

? g

¶13

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶14

CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.

¶15

Misc. Appeal No.292 of 2000 APPELLANTS 1. Parminder Singh S/o Shri Hardeep Claimants Singh Aged about 21 years 2. Ku. Kiranjeet Kaur D/o Late Hardeep Singh, aged about 20 years Smt. Ajmer Kaur W/o Iate Hardeep Singh aged about 4O years AH R/o M.I.G.-534 Veer Sawarker Nagar, Tati-Bandh, Raipu'r Vers’us 3ESPONDENTS 1. Rakesh Kumar Yadav, S/o Jawar Singh C/o Janta Rice Mill Karhal Thana, Karhal, District’Manipuri (U.P.) Mahfuj Ali, S/o Maksud All, C/o Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Karhal Thana, District Manipuri (U.P.) The Oriental Insurance COmpany Ltd. C/o Divisional Office, Kacheri-Chowk, ' Raipur

¶16

‘MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988

¶17

Appearance:

¶18

Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate for the appellants/claimants. None for respondents 1 & 2.

¶19

Mr. A.K. Athaley, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶20

JUDGMENT ( ($032010) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.

¶21

(1) The appellants/claimants have med this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 18/96 by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur on 2.1 1 .99.

¶22

¶23

Misc. Appeal No. 292 of 2000

¶24

(2) The facts, briefly stated, are^asunder:—

¶25

¶26

The appel|ants/c|aimants, unfonunate^{sistersandmotherof} deceased—Indrajeet Singh, filed a Claim Petition uls 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming^{compensationofRs.10,60,000/—forhis} death in the motor accident which took place^{on8.5.97whenthe} truck bearing registration No. MP 23—D/6529, in which the deceased was traveiing as a^{helper,wasdashedbytheoffending} bus bearing registration No. U.P. 084/9305^{onaccountofrashand} negligent driving of the said bus by its driver. The deceased (cleaner)^and his father—Hardeep Singh (driver^ofthe truck) both died in the accident, therefore, two separate claim petitions^were filed.

¶27

The appellant pleaded that their son Indrajeet Singh was earning Rs.1,500/per^monthand he was also getting bhatta of Rs.50/- per day.

¶28

The Claim Petition was filed against the owner, driver and insurer of the bus. The owner and insurer of the truck were not made parties to the Claim Petition.

¶29

The Tribunal held that it was a case of contributory negligence to the extent of 50%^onthe part^{ofthedriversofboth} the vehicles. The Tribunal further held that the deceased was earning Rs.1,500/— per month.‘After deducting 1/3” towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency of the appellants was worked. out to Rs.1,000/— per month and Rs.12,000/— per annum. By applying multiplier of 17 to the^annual dependency of Rs.12,000/-, the^{compensationwasworkedoutto} Rs.2,04,000/-. Though the Tribunal awarded Rs.12,000/— under other permissible heads but it fell in mathematical error by determining the total amount of compensation as Rs.2,52,000/— which according to correct calculations would come to Rs.2,16,000/—. Holding the present to be a case of contributory negligence, the Tribunal deducted^50% of Rs.2,52,000/— (wrongly calculated by the Tribunal) and directed for payment of i

¶30

¶31

¶32

Misc. Appeal N0. 292 of 2000

¶33

Rs.1,26,000/as compensation to the appellants/claimants on account of death of deceased-Indrajeet Singh in the motor accident. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of^12% per annum from the date of filing of the Ciaim Petition^{tillitsrealization.} (3) Mr. Jameel Akhtar Loha'ni, Iearned counsel^{appearingonbehaifof} the appellants/claimants, raised only one point. He argued that the Tribunal fell in error‘ by deducting 50% from the total amount of compensation calculated by the Tribunal holding it to be a case of V contributory negligence. In fact, it was not a case of contributory negligence, so far as deceased-lndrajeet Singh is concerned, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have awarded the entire amount calculated as compensation without making any deduction.

¶34

(4) On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Athaley, learned counsel^appearingon behalf of respondent No.3, opposed these arguments^{andsupportedthe} award passed by the Claims Tribunal.

¶35

(5) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case.

¶36

(6) In T.O. Anthony^—Vs- Karvarnan and Others, (2008)³ SCC^748, the Supreme Court held that in an accident involving two or more vehicles, where a third party (other than the drivers and/or^ownersofthe vehicles involved) claims damages for loss or injuries, it is said that compensation is payable in respect of the‘composite negligence“of the drivers of both the vehicles. But in respect of such an accident, if the claim is by one of the drivers himself for personal injuries, or by the^legal heirs of one of the drivers for loss on account of his death, or by the owher of one of the vehicles in respect of damages to his vehicle, then

¶37

Misc. Appeal No. 292 of 2000

¶38

@g‘

¶39

the issue that arises is not about the^“composite negligence” of all the drivers, but about the^{“contributory} negligence" of the driver concernedt The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Another^—Vs- K. Hemlatha and Others,_L2008) 6 SCC 767.

¶40

(7) Therefore, the^“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 would be a case of “composite negligence” of those wrongdoers. The Supreme Court held in T.O. Anthony (supra) that in such a case, each wrongdoer would be 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.

¶41

(8) Therefore, the present was a case of^“composite negligence” on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles and the appellants/claimants had a choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In the present case, they have availed their choice against the owner, driver and insurer of the bus who would be jointly and severally liable to pay entire compensation on account of^“compOsite negligence” and the\Tribunal erred in law in making deduction on the basis of liability of the driver of the truck to the extent of 50%.

¶42

(9) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. It is held that'the appellants/claimants are entitled to receive Rs.2,16,000/as

¶43

Misc. Appeal No. 292 of 2000

¶44

¶45

compensation on account of death of deceased-Indrajeet Singh in the motor accident. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,26,000/-. By deducting the said amount from Rs.2,16,000/-, the balance of compensation comes to Rs.90,000l— which now the appellants/ciaimants are entitled to receive from respondent No.3.

¶46

(10) To avoid further compiications and Iooking to the delay caused in disposal of the Claim Petition as also the claimants‘ appeal and that the Insurance Company alone cannot be blamed for such delay, we deem it appropriate to quantify the interest, which We quantify as Rs.10,000/— in this matter.

¶47

(11) Therefore, the appellants/claimants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- more (Rs.90,000/— as the balance amount of compensation and Rs.10,000/- as the quantified interest on the balance amount) which they shall receive from the insurance Company/respondent No.3.

¶48

(12) The Oriental lnsurance Company Ltd/respondent No.3 is granted 3 months time to deposit the aforesaid amount before the concerned Claims Tribunal, failing which, they shall be liable to pay interest on the said amount at the rate of 6% per annum for the period commencing after lapse of 3 months from today till realization;

¶49

(13) The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no orders as to the cost.

¶50

Sdl—
Chief Justice

¶51

‘
l Sd/
i, sun“ Kumar Sinha ‘
‘/"‘ -
Judge g i

¶52

vatti

Parminder Singh and Ors. v. Rakesh Kumar Yadav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parminder Singh and Ors. v. Rakesh Kumar Yadav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of M.P. and Anr. Vs Nand Kumar Dubey, and Anr.

Jiwan Lal Rajak and Another Vs State of Cg and Others

Santosh Kumar Ratre and Ors. Vs State of Cg and Others

Karamjeet Kaur and Ors. Vs Dindanath Mishra and Ors.

Atlanta Limited Vs Chairman-Cum-M.D. S.E.C.L. and Ors.

Smt. Kamlesh Devi Vs Regional Transport Authority and Anr.