PETITIONER The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., /, T.P.Nagar, Korba, Throgh— its Senior Divisional Manager, Divisionai Office, Geetanjaii Bhawan, Main Road, Korba (C.G.). Versus RESPONDENTS / 1. Daduram, S/o Tiharu, aged about 60 years, Caste Satnami, Manu Bai, W/o Daduram, aged about 55 years, Shani Kumari, D/o Khikram, aged about 14 years, Ranjani Kumari, D/o Khikram, aged about 12 years, Ku. Manika ,^{D/oKhikram,aged} about 08 years, Kumari Suman, D/o Khikram, aged about O8 years, Note : Respondents No. 3 to 6 are minors, represented through grand^father Daduram (Respondent No.1) ,^S/o Tiharu, AII are residents^ofFaraswani, Tahsil and P.S. Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.). Ajay Kumar, S/o Bhagwan Singh, r/o Gousaia^Road—1 Puruiia Road, Kunwar^Basti, Mango, P.S., Tahsil and Distt. Jamshedpur (Jug Saiai),^Bihar. Jitendra, S/o Nathuni^Singh,r/o Katwar, P.O. Shivpur,^P.S.

¶7

“02’

¶8

Asav, Distt. Siwan, Bihar. Sanjay Kumar, S/o Hardeo /9. Kumar, r/o village Khakud, Aurangabad, Bihar, Presently r/o Village Tudiya,^“Bade Yudhist Anguri Makan “Kirayadar”, M.4.M, Distt. Purullya (W.B.). 10. The New India Insurance Co., T.P.Nagar, Korba (C.G.).

¶9

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/ 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶10

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. (C) No. 1299 OF 2M1

¶11

The Orienta! insurance Co. Ltd.

¶12

Versus

¶13

RESPONDENTS Daduram and Others.

¶14

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶15

(Single^Bench: Hon'ble Shri N.K. Aqarwal, J.)

¶16

Present : Shri Ratan Pushty, counselforthe petitioner.

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

(Passed^{on9‘“dayofMarch,2011)}

¶19

Heard on admission.

¶20

The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the Insurance Company against the order dated 29-09-2010 passed by Additionai Motor Accident Claims ‘the Tribunai, Sakti, District Janjgir (hereinafter referred to as Tribunai’) in Claim Case No.28/2009 whereby the names of respondents No. 8 & 10 were permitted to be deleted from the claim petition.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner wouid submit: the instant accident took place due to collision of two vehicies. Whether or not the said accident had occurred on account of composite negligence of both the vehicles is a relevant question to be decided by the Tribunal. The decision on the above issue is also relevant for the petitioner in as much as if it is held, accident had occurred due to composite negligence of both the vehicles, the petitioner alone may not be heid responsible for payment^{ofentireamountofcompensationtotheclaimants.} 4. it is stated that the petitioner^hadmoved an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, though no such order has been passed on the above application, till date by. the Tribunal.

¶22

¶23

Be that as it may, in case of composite negligence each wrcngdoer is jointly and severaiiy liable to the injured for payment^{oftheentiredamagesandtheinjured} person^hasthe choice of proceeding against all or any of them.

¶24

The Supreme Court in case of 120. Anthony Vs. Karvaman and others; reported in (2G08) 3 SCC 748, has held in para 6 of the judgment as under:

¶25

“6 “Composite negligence" refers to the negiigence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of 'more negligence on the part of two or wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoersi In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally iiable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured ' person^{hasthechoiceof} proceeding^againstallor any of them. ln such a case, the injured^'need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separateiy, 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 his own negligence, then the negligence on the part ofthe 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 his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stand reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence.”

¶26

¶27

of iaw, ! do^notfind

¶28

7‘ 1n View^{oftheabavesewed} position any^{megalityintheorderimpugnedwarrantinginterferenceofthis} Court^{underArticie227oftheCanstitutionofindie.} 8. it is^{wellsettledprincipieofiawthatthisCourt,inexercise} under Article 227 of the

¶29

of its supervisory juriediciion Constitution^{oflndia,shouldrefrainitselffrominterferingwiththe} order passed^{bytheCourtbelow,exceptinsuchcaseswhere} perversity,^{illegality,irregularityorjurisdictionalerroriswritlarge} on the^{faceoftherecord,whichisnotinthepresentcase.}

¶30

Kvr

¶31

M 9. Accordingly,^{thepetitionbeingdevoidofsubstanceisliable} MM to be^{andisherebydismissed.}

¶32

SdlN,K.^Agrawal Judge

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,Korba v. Daduram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,Korba v. Daduram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Lal Vs Snehil Singh and Ors.

Jagdish Prasad Dixena and Ors. Vs Laxmi Devi Dixena and Anr.

Hamid Khan Vs Rahman Bee

Heeralal Since Dead Thr Lrs. and Ors. Vs Smt. Isbati and Anr.

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Ashwani Kumar and Ors.

Guriha Died Thr.Lrs Suka Chand and Ors. Vs Pramod Kumar and Ors.