Composite negligence recognized in motor vehicle accidents where multiple parties are involved, leading to joint liability for compensatory claims.

JUDGMENT :

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.193 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 29.10.2005, the petitioner was walking along Kunnamthanam-Mallappally road when an Ambassador car bearing Registration No. KEO/12, driven by the fourth respondent owner-cum-driver, struck a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KL-03-M-9439 ridden by the first respondent travelling on the same road. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries in the accident. The appellant approached the tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.5,20,250/- limited to Rs.2,20,250/- .

3. The respondents 1 to 3 were the rider, owner and insurer of the motorcycle and the respondents 4 and 5 were the owner-cum-driver and insurer of the car respectively. Only the 3^rd and 5^th respondents/insurers contested while others remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent/insurer of the motorcycle contended that the accident was the result of owner-cum-driver of the car and therefore not liable for any compensation. The 5^th respondent/insurer of the car, levelled allegations of negligence against the motorcyclist and denied the allegation against the owner-cum-driver of the car and also denied the existence of policy covering the accident. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A14 were marked. PW1 was examined. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs.1,98,344/- with interest @9% per annum as compensation under different heads against the 4th respondent owner cum driver of the car. The claimant filed the appeal mainly challenging the finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the car which did not have a valid policy at the time of accident and also dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that, it was his specific case that the motorcycle which was ridden in a rash and negligent manner hit on the appellant, who was a pedestrian and due to the hit he sustained injuries. The learned counsel further submitted that in the claim petition also, he has alleged negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and not against the driver of the car. Since the car hit the motorcycle and the motorcyclist in turn hit the appellant and he sustained injuries, the negligence was composite negligence on the part of the driver of the car and the rider of the motorcycle. According to the appellant, the negligence was composite negligence and the finding of the tribunal that the negligence was solely on the part of the driver of the car is not correct. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company on the other hand submits that the charge sheet was drawn against the driver of the car. Since the driver of the car moved to his wrong side and hit the motorcycle, the tribunal found that negligence was on the part of the driver of the car and not on the rider of the motorcycle.

5. I have considered the rival contentions raised by both sides.

6. On a perusal of the award as well as the documents produced, it is seen that admittedly, the charge sheet was drawn against the driver of the car. But the accident occurred when the car hit the motorcycle and thereby the motorcycle hit the pedestrian. In this case, the rider of the motorcycle also sustained injuries and he had filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the car and a