ORDER :

1. All these appeals arise out of the same accident hence they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The claimants had preferred claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal being claim petition nos. 3/1993, 8/1993, 12/1993 and 13/1993 at Rampur. The Tribunal held in favour of the claimant and granted requisite compensation in all the four matters with 10% rate of interest.

3. This has aggrieved the Insurance company. As according to the Insurance company the accident which occurred on 1.00 a.m. night intervening between 26-27.6.1992 between two vehicles. The accident is not in dispute. There is no breach of policy. The Income of the deceased/injured is also not in dispute before this Court and, therefore, detailed facts are not mentioned. The only ground raised is that the driver of Car was sole negligent and in the alternative, he had contributed to the accident having taken place and that the finding holding that the truck driver was the sole author of the accident is bad in eye of law.

4. The appellant is Insurer of the truck, which was going in front of the Car, which was being plied by one of the deceased and the driver of the Car died in the accident.

5. It is submitted by Sri K.S. Amist that this is a case of contributory negligence as a person driving the car, which is plying on the road, has to be more conscious. The driver of the car, therefore, was solely negligent as the driver of the truck was driving the truck ahead of the Car. The driver of the Car was driving at great uncontrollable speed and that is how he came and dashed with the truck which had become stationary and, therefore, the driver of the Car should be considered to be solely negligent. In the alternative, it is submitted that if he was not solely negligent, he was also contributory to the accident having taken place.

6. It is an admitted position of fact that the driver of the truck has not stepped into witness box. There was no charge-sheet filed and a report was that the truck became stationary.

7. While going through principles for deciding the negligence of the drivers of the vehicle, it is submitted that the driver of the Car has to be presumed to be driving the Car at high speed as it dashed from behind and 4 persons died.

8. The concept of contributory negligence has been time and again evolved, decided and discussed by the courts.

9. The term negligence means failure to exercise care towards others which a reasonable and prudent person would in a circumstance or taking action which such a reasonable person would not. Negligence can be both intentional or accidental which is normally accidental. More particularly, it connotes reckless driving and the injured must always prove that the either side is negligent. If the injury rather death is caused by something owned or controlled by the negligent party then he is directly liable otherwise the principle of "res ipsa loquitur" meaning thereby "the things speak for itself" would apply.

10. The term contributory negligence has been discussed time and again a person who either contributes or is author of the accident would be liable for his contribution to the accident having taken place. The Apex Court in Pawan Kumar and Another vs. M/s. Harkishan Dass Mohan Lal and Others decided on 29 January, 2014 has held as follows:

7. Where the plaintiff/claimant himself is found to be a party to the negligence the question of joint and several liability cannot arise and the plaintiff's claim to the extent of his own negligence, as may be quantified, will have to be severed. In such a situation the plaintiff can only be held entitled to such part of damages/compensation that is not attributable to his own negligence. The above principle has been explained in T.O. Anthony (supra) followed in K. Hemlatha and Others (supra). Paras 6 and 7 of T.O. Anthony (supra) which are relevant may be extracted herein-below:

"6. "Composite negligence" refers to the negligence on the part of two or more perso