IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the application of the concept of composite negligence in determining liability for compensation in road accidents.

JUDGMENT

Dharmesh Sharma, J.

1. This judgment shall decide the present appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [MV Act], assailing the impugned award dated 22.05.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi, [Tribunal] in MACT No. 747/2003 titled 'Smt. Kiran Bakhla & Anr. v. Shri Sudershan & Ors.', whereby an amount of Rs. 6,57,936/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded as compensation from the date of institution of claim petition on 24.12.2003 to the petitioner/ respondent No.1 for death of her husband, wherein she was made entitled to 50% of the claim amount, respondent No. 2 was made entitled to 30% of the claim amount and respondent No. 5, for death of his son was made entitled to 20% of the claim amount. The liability to pay compensation was fastened jointly and severally in equal proportion upon the Insurance Company and appellant Mr. Sudershan.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. Succinctly put, the deceased Sh. Balasius Alwis Bakhla, aged 29 years on the fateful day dated 12.08.2003, met his unfortunate demise when at about 8:35 PM, in an attempt to board a bus from Chirag Delhi Bus Stop to reach his home, he tried to board DTC bus bearing No. DL 1PB 0783 [DTC bus] being driven by Shri Ravi Kumar/ respondent No. 3 in the claim petition, and fell on the ground losing his balance due to sudden motion of the offending vehicle whereafter, he was hit by a RTV bus bearing No. DL 1V 8369 [RTV bus] being driven by Sh. Sudershan/respondent No. 1 in the claim petition and the appellant herein. Due to the injuries sustained, the deceased was admitted to AIIMS, New Delhi wherein he succumbed to his injuries.

PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE FIR REGISTERED

3. Pursuant to the fatal accident, FIR No. 414/2003 dated 13.08.2003 under Section 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC] and under Section 3/181 of the MV Act was filed at PS Ambedkar Nagar against the drivers of both DTC bus and RTV bus. In the trial before the learned Tribunal, wherein the RTV bus driver was acquitted, the DTC bus driver/appellant herein was convicted for offences under the IPC vide judgment dated 15.02.2012. The same was challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 96/2012 whereby the learned District and Sessions Judge observed that the reasoning of the learned Magistrate in acquitting RTV bus driver vide judgment dated 09.04.2012 and relieving DTC bus driver of offences under MV Act was unacceptable but that the same could not be re-opened as having attained finality since they were not challenged by way of cross- appeal by the State. Finally, the learned Judge set aside the impugned judgment and order on sentence on the finding that credibility of testimony by PW-5/eyewitness/Sh. Chotey Lal was doubtful, hence, vide order dated 31.01.2013, appellant in the instant appeal, Sudershan was acquitted as well.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER

4. Suffice to state that respondent No. 1 to 5 herein filed a claim petition claiming a compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- before the learned MACT. It was found that while the RTV bus was uninsured, the DTC bus was insured with respondent No.6 in the claim petition, i.e., National Insurance Co. Ltd. Furthermore, on the basis of the pleadings by the parties, vide order dated 21.02.2006, the learned MACT framed the following issues for its consideration:

"1. Whether the deceased received fatal injuries in an accident Which took place on 12.8.2003 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicles No: DL-IV 8369 and DL 1P B 0783 driven by respondents No.1(DL 1V 8369) and No.3 (DL 1PB0783), owned by respondents No. 2 and 4 and bus (DL 1PB 0783) insured with respondent No.6? OPP.

2.Whether respondent No.6 is not liable to pay compensation on account of the preliminary objections taken by it in its written statement? OPR.

3.Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amountand against which of the respondents?

4.Relief."

5. While