Point of law: When two vehicles are involved in an accident, and one of the drivers claims compensation from the other driver alleging negligence, and the other driver denies negligence or claims that the injured claimant himself was negligent, then it becomes necessary to consider whether the injured claimant was negligent and if so, whether he was solely or partly responsible for the accident and the extent of his responsibility, that is his contributory negligence. Therefore where the injured is himself partly liable, the principle of 'composite negligence' will not apply nor can there be an automatic inference that the negligence was 50:50 as has been assumed in this case

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Chand, J.

1. Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company. None has appeared for the owner.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 15.12.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.15, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No. 344 of 2009.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 2.11.2008 the deceased along with other villagers was going from village Kaili to Ghaziabad in the car and at about 8.40 in the morning when they reached near village Lakhankat at National Highway 24, a Scorpio bearing No.DL 4 CNB-2772 dashed with the car. As a result of that, all those who were sitting in the car sustained injuries but the deceased had sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted from one hospital to other and ultimately on 3.12.2008, he succumbed to his injuries at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi.

4. The deceased was 45 years of age at the time of accident. He was an agriculturist and was having vocation of advocacy and was earning Rs.8,000/-from his each profession. He was survived by his widow and two children. The Tribunal has considered his income to be Rs.5,000/-, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, granted multiplier of 13, granted Rs.3,90,000/-towards medical expenses and ultimately assessed the total compensation to be Rs.9,40,000/-. The Tribunal held both the drivers namely driver of the Car in which the deceased was travelling and the driver of the Scorpio 50:50% negligent and as the owner/driver of the car was not made party, deducted 50% of the amount of compensation.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has deducted 50% of the award which is bad as the deceased was not plying the vehicle which met with accident.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased was an agriculturist and was also in the profession of advocacy, hence, his income as considered by the Tribunal is on the lower side and it should be considered to be Rs.16,000/-per month namely Rs.8,000/-from each profession. It is further submitted that th Tribunal did not grant any amount for future loss of income of the deceased and also the amount awarded under non-pecuniary heads granted by the Tribunal is on the lower side and which should be as per the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 105.

Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the interest as awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and requires to be enhanced.

7. As against this, Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that income as suggested by the appellants cannot be granted even in the year of accident. It is further submitted by Sri Mehrotra that the Tribunal has erred in granting future loss of income to be 40% as it should be 30% in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra). This submission of Sri Mehrotra is misread as the judgment does not reflect any amount under the head of future loss has been added to the datum figure.

8. It is submitted by Sri Mehrotra that the quantum of compensation and the interest awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, let us consider the negligence from the perspective of the law laid down.

10. 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