IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment clarified the legal principles distinguishing contributory negligence from composite negligence, establishing that in accidents involving multiple vehicles, liability should be apportioned based on the degree of negligence of each driver.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the named appellant-New India Insurance Company Limited challenging the award passed by presiding Officer Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Motor Accident Claim Case No.144 of 2009, whereby and whereunder the claim case instituted by the claimants was allowed, granting compensation amount to the tune of Rs.13,05,200/-along with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of award till its realization.

3. Upon service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned award only on ground that the manner of occurrence in this case is very peculiar in the sense that the deceased namely Raj Kumar Prajapati was driver of a Mini Tata Truck 407 bearing Reg. No.JH-01S-8161, while driving the vehicle very rashly and negligently dashed the another stationary vehicle and as he applied the brake suddenly, meanwhile, another truck bearing Reg. No.BR-14G-1981 could not be controlled and dashed the said Mini Tata Truck 407 from behind and due to this accident, the driver of the Mini Tata Truck 407 died during on the spot and the cleaner of the said vehicle was injured and send for treatment to RIMS, Ranchi.

5. It is further submitted that it is a purely a case of contributory negligence but the learned Tribunal has framed issue No.4 regarding the composite negligence and failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record on this issue by ascertaining the degree and perusal of the negligence on the part of both the derivers of Mini Truck and Truck bearing Reg. Nos.JH-01S-8161 and BR-14G-1981 respectively.

6. Learned Tribunal further failed to appreciate while considering application filed by the complainants under section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 that the liability of both insurers was in proportion to the ration of 50 % each and accordingly 25,000/-was paid to each insurer of the vehicles to the claimants.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further pointed out that there are vital differences between contributory negligence and composite negligence. It is settled law that in the case of composite negligence, the liability may be saddled on the shoulder of any one of the joint tortfeasor but in case of contributory negligence the person claiming compensation who contributes in the happening of the accident., the amount of compensation has to be reduced to the extent and percentage of negligence of the deceased or injured himself. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the case in proper prospective and in rightful manner and without framing any issue as regards contributory negligence of the deceased, the Tribunal has saddled the appellant company with liability to pay entire amount of compensation along with interest which has been paid to the claimants as per direction of this Hon’ble High Court subject to result of this appeal. Therefore, this appeal is fit to be allowed or the matter may be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal for framing issue regarding contributory negligence of the deceased himself in the happening of the accident and its extent and percentage so that the appellant should not be prejudiced.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the above arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and submitted that learned Tribunal has very wisely and aptly apprised and appreciated the entire aspects of the case and arrived at right conclusion. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award calling for any interference by way of this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed.

9. The matter herein is confined to the extend of inter-se liability of both the drivers of the vehicles involved in this case for the purpose of quantifying the ratio of negligence and attributability of compensatio