1. The appeal is against the Judgment and award dated 31-07-2006 passed by the Motor accident Tribunal, Yavatmal in claim Petition No. 488 of 1998 on its file whereby the Tribunal was pleased to grant compensation in the sum of Rs 23,24,000/-inclusive of amount of no fault liability together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application.

2. The facts briefly stated by the claimants are:-On 20.6.1998, a mechanical engineer working with the Manganese Ore (India) Limited as Senior Manager (Mechanical) was driving Maruti Van bearing R/No. MP-22-B/7222 from the side of Nagpur towards Wardha. While the Maruti Van was near village Jangalpur Shivar, ST Bus bearing R/No. MH-31-8209 came from opposite side in a high and abnormal speed. The Bus attempted to overtake bullock cart which was in front of the bus. Driver of the bus could not control and gave dash to Maruti Van which Vijaykumar was driving as a result of which front side of Maruti Van was badly damaged and it veered around. Vijaykumar sustained serious injuries and he died at the spot. After giving dash, the Bus went on right side of the road and stopped at about 75-80 feet away from the spot of accident.

3. At the time of his death, Vijaykumar was aged about 37 years and only bread-earner for his family. Claimants are mother, widow and daughter. Vijaykumar was getting salary of Rs. 13,485/- per month. The Tribunal held that Vijaykumar succumbed to injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of S. T. Bus in question and granted compensation of Rs. 23,24,000/- to the claimants, as aforesaid.

4. I have heard submissions and perused the documentary evidence on the record. There is no independent eye witness to depose as to how the incident had actually occurred. Learned counsel for appellant contends that the amount of award was excessive and that the Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that deceased while he was driving Maruti Van was blameworthy for rash and negligent driving and, therefore, 50% compensation ought to have been disallowed. It is also submitted that the Tribunal ought to have deducted amount of 50% towards personal or self expenses. It is contended that it is a case of contributory negligence on the part of driver on Maruti Van as well as Bus driver and drivers of both the vehicles were responsible for the accident.

5. Learned advocate for the appellant made reference to the ruling in the Oriental Insurance Company Vs Meena Variyal reported in (2007) 5 SCC 428 to submit that the contract of insurance is contract of indemnity between the insurance company and the insured. When the insured Motor vehicle meets with an accident while driven by the employee of the insured, primary liability is of the driver and then owner of the vehicle becomes vicariously liable. Insurer would pay for such vicarious liability of the owner pursuant to the insurance Contract. Third party for whose benefit the insurance contract was entered in to is required to establish under section 166 of the Motor vehicle Act that the driver was negligent to drive the vehicle resulting in the motor vehicle accident and the owner of the offending motor vehicle is vicariously liable and that the insurance company is bound to indemnify the owner.

6. Learned Advocate for the respondents submitted with reference to the ruling that the employees of the insured are not normally covered under the contract of insurance, but the learned counsel invited my attention to the ruling in T. O . Anthony Vs. Karvaran and others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 748 in para 6 it is observed thus –

“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 wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a case, each wrong doer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the in