The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the concept of composite negligence in determining liability for a fatal accident and the statutory duty to award just compensation.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellants have fled these appeals under Sec. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the MV Act") challenging the judgments and awards dtd. 18/12/2010 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-3, Nagpur in Claim Petition Nos. 249 of 2000 and 262 of 2000. By the impugned judgments and awards, the learned Member has awarded compensation of Rs.4,95,000.00 and Rs.86,220.00 along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from 3/3/2010 till realization of the said amounts in both claim petitions respectively. Since both these appeals arise out of the same accident, are disposed of by common judgment.

2. The brief facts are as under :

Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 i.e., original claimants are children of deceased Narsimalu s/o. Ashappa Sahare and Timalla w/o. Narsimalu Sahare. Deceased Narsimalu was 50 years old while Timalla was 35 at the time of accident. They were employed with the Railway Department and were earning Rs.5000.00 and Rs.4,500.00 p.m. respectively. On 28/1/2000, deceased Narsimalu was driving a motorcycle bearing No. MH 31/ AK-68 from Kalmeshwar to Wardha. Deceased Timalla was a pillion rider.

According to petitioners, on the said date and on Wardha Nagpur Road near Paunar, the vehicle bearing No. 98-D-113485Y owned by the Military came from opposite direction in a high speed, and rashly and negligently dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of which, both i.e. deceased Narsimalu and Timalla died on the spot. Respondent No.1 i.e. appellant No.1 is the owner of offending vehicle while Respondent No.2 i.e. appellant No.2 is the driver. The original claimants accordingly fled claim petitions for grant of compensation under Sec. 166 of the MV Act.

The owner of vehicle and driver denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. 98-D-113485Y. According to them, it was due to negligence of the deceased Narsimalu, who himself had dashed against the military van, leading to the accident in question.

Upon considering the evidence on record, the tribunal held that there was contributory negligence to the extent of 80% on the part of deceased Narsimalu whereas 20% on the part of driver of the military van bearing No. 98-D- 113485Y. Since it was the case of composite negligence, learned Member was pleased to allow the claim petition of claimants in respect of death of their mother, namely, Timalla and partly allowed the petition with proportionate costs. Both the judgments and awards are under challenge in these appeals.

3. Mrs.Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the learned Member has committed grave error in not appreciating the fact that though the crime was registered against appellant No.2-driver but ultimately after conclusion of the investigation, "A Summary Report" was fled. Similarly, in departmental enquiry, appellant No.2- driver was not found guilty. Having regard to the evidence on record that the accident in question took place because of negligence of the deceased Narsimalu, learned Member ought to have dismissed the claim of the respondents herein. As far as First Appeal No. 171 of 2012 is concerned, according to learned counsel, in Claim Petition No. 262 of 2000, it has been held by learned Member that appellant No.2 - driver was contributorily negligent to the extent of 20% and this being so and as also since the evidence is same on record, then in Claim Petition No. 249 of 2000 learned Member ought to have held similarly. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals deserve to be allowed, argued learned counsel.

4. Mr. Mandhare, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported both impugned judgments and awards. However, learned counsel emphasized that no just compensation has been awarded and urged that the respondents may be given just compensation. Learned counsel also placed reliance in Khenyei Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. 2015 (4) MLJ 364 and Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Nagpur Branch Versus Ma