IMPORTANT POINT
In cases of composite negligence, the plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire compensation as the liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the Award dated 05.06.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned Award') passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-01, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in MACT Case No.254/2021 titled Mamta & Ors. v. Dharmendra Yadav & Ors..

2. The case of the claimants/respondent nos.1 to 4 before the learned Tribunal was that on 19.05.2021, deceased- Mithlesh Jha along with his family was going in a Car, that is, Mahindra Xylo bearing registration number DL-ACNB-4704 (hereinafter referred to as the `Mahindra Car') from Delhi to Bihar. The car was being driven by Mohd. Rizwan. They were in the third lane of the highway at a speed of around 40 - 50 kmph. At about 10:21 am, when they reached near village Budehari, PS Ramsanehi Ghat, Barabanki, approximately 6 km ahead of the Toll Plaza, one truck bearing registration number UP-53GT-2422 (hereinafter referred to as the `Truck'), which was parked on the highway in the same lane, suddenly started driving reverse without taking any note of the traffic that was plying on the highway at that particular time. The driver of their Mahindra Car, that is, Mohd. Rizwan, tried his best to save their car from the said truck, but the truck hit their car and the deceased- Mithlesh Jha received fatal injuries and his daughter Pushpanjali received multiple grievous injuries.

3. The learned Tribunal, by the Impugned Award has held that the accident had taken place due to the composite negligence of the driver of the Mahindra Car and the Truck, and attributed the same 50:50 on both the drivers. The learned Tribunal, after determining the compensation payable to the Claimants, held that as the Truck was insured with the appellant herein, the appellant shall deposit the whole of the award amount in favour of the Claimants, and may pursue legal remedies available to it as per law for recovery of half amount of the awarded amount from the driver, owner and insurer of the Mahindra Car, if so advised.

NEGLIGENCE:

4. The appellant challenges the Impugned Award on the ground that learned Tribunal has erred in holding composite negligence in the ratio of 50% each against the driver of both the vehicles, that is, the Mahindra Car and the Truck. The appellant states that negligence was solely of the driver of the Mahindra Car in which the deceased was travelling and not of the truck.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in attributing 50% contributory negligence towards the driver of the Truck, as the said Truck was parked and was in a stationary position at the time of the accident in question and, therefore, the sole negligence was of the driver of the Mahindra Car. In support, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was a delay of nine days in lodging the FIR, and the same has not been dealt with by the learned Tribunal in its Impugned Award.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, however, find no merit in the same.

7. The learned Tribunal, while deciding the issue of negligence of the driver of the Truck and the Mahindra Car, has held as under:

"9.3 The petitioner has examined petitioner no.01 Mamta who has specifically deposed that she was also traveling along-with deceased in the car bearing registration number DL-ACNB-4704on the date and time of incident. The truck bearing registration number UP-53GT-2422 was in stationary condition on highway and driver of said truck suddenly started reversing it. Their driver Mohd. Rizwan tried his best, but their vehicle collided with said truck. In her cross- examination, she has deposed that speed of their car was around 50 kmph at the time of incident and the incident happened due to sudden reversing of said truck by respondentno.01. In given circumstances, it is clear that the vehicle in which the petitioner no.01 and deceased were traveling, hit