JUDGMENT :

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant-National Insurance Company Limited has preferred this Misc. Appeal against the award dated 06.01.2015 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, in Compensation Case No.112 of 2005 whereby, the claimants/respondents have been awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.8,23,000/- after deducting the amount, if any paid under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of publication of notice in the Newspaper i.e. from 7th August 2012 till the date of payment which shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, failing which interest @ 12% per annum from the date of judgment shall be payable.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Alok Lal, while assailing the impugned judgment has fairly submitted that he has not prayed any relief against the owner of the offending vehicle insured before him i.e. Bagha Motor Pariwahan Swalambi Sahkari Samiti having its office at Village & P.O.-Bagha, District-Lohardaga.

Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Alok Lal has vehemently argued and submitted that the deceased-Sagir Ansari was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No.JH-08A 1542 as 'Khalasi'. The said bus collided on 19.12.2003 with a Truck bearing Registration No.BHV 9114, causing injury to several persons and Sagir Ansari, cleaner died in course of treatment. Police registered Chanho P.S. Case No.69 of 2003 and after investigation submitted chargesheet against both the drivers of the offending vehicles i.e. Bus and truck, but learned Tribunal has framed issue with regard to composite negligence as Issue No.VII and has decided the same at Para-14 along with Issue Nos.3, 5, 6 and 8. The learned Tribunal has wrongly held that in absence of particular evidence brought by Opp. Party No.2/ witness No.1-Sunil Kumar, Surveyor of the Insurance Company dealt in Para-9 of the impugned judgment.

Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Alok Lal has further submitted that it is a case of composite negligence. It was duty of the learned Tribunal to implead the owner, driver and the Insurance Company of another vehicle i.e. Truck bearing Registration No. BHV 9114 as party in this case, so as to apportion the share of the award upon both the Insurance Companies or both the owners of the offending vehicle, if they have violated any terms and conditions of the policy under Section 149(2) of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly submitted that the claimants have every right to sue any of the Insurance Company, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Meera Devi Vs. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and Ors., reported in (2014) 4 SCC 511. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant has fairly submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., reported in (2015) 9 SCC 273, has elaborately dealt this issue at para 15 regarding the distinction between the contributory and composite negligence, relying upon the judgment of T.O. Anthony Vs. Karbarnan & Ors., reported in (2008) 3 SCC 748. The same is quoted hereafter:-

“15. There is a difference between contributory and composite negligence. In the case of contributory negligence, a person who has himself contributed to the accident cannot claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident to the extent of his own negligence; whereas in the case of composite negligence, a person who has suffered has not contributed to the accident but due to the outcome of combination of negligence of two or more other persons. This Court in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan [(2008) 3 SCC 748 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 832 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 738] has held that in case of contributory negligence, the injured need not est