The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of negligence, contributory negligence, and composite negligence in determining liability and apportioning compensation in motor vehicle accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and Sri Vinay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle.

2. Both these appeals arise out of the same accident causing death of the Sunil and Manoj Kumar. First Appeal From Order No. 4118 of 2018 (arising out of MACP No. 770 of 2014) has been preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased-Sunil and First Appeal From Order No. 4117 of 2018 (arising out of MACP No. 771 of 2014) has been preferred by the legal heirs of deceased-Manoj Kumar. Both these appeals challenge the judgment and award dated 24.9.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Aligarh.

3. As the issues which are to be decided can be decided from the perusal of the judgment impugned and certain documents appended with memo of appeal and as the matter is very old, we dispense with record and decide the same by consent of the parties.

4. At the outset, once again, we direct and request the Registrar General to issue circular to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals to decide the matters arising out of same accident after consolidating the same.

5. Averments made in the memo of appeal go to show that Sunil, Manoj and wife of Sunil namely Neetu got injured in the vehicular accident. Sunil and Manoj died on the spot. The accident occurred in front of Sonai Station Road on 17.9.2014 at 8.00 p.m. It is unrebutted averments that the Wagon R which was owned by respondent came and rammed into stationery Indica Car being driven by Manoj Kumar. Respondent No.1, Sunil Garg, is the driver and owner of the offending vehicle namely Wagon R. He has not appeared before the Tribunal nor has he appeared before this Court. The Insurance Company came and filed its reply of negation. The accident though having occurred in the year after the 1988 Act, the reply was as if it is under the old Act namely Act of 1939. They denied the fact that vehicle was insured with them. They have denied the fact that premium was paid. The Insurance Company, in its reply, has stated that the vehicle was being driven in breach of policy.

6. All other issues except issue of holding the deceased negligent and compensation granted for the death of Sunil and Manoj Kumar are not under challenge and, therefore, further detailed facts are not required to be elaborately discussed.

7. Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that Manoj Kumar, the elder brother, of Sunil was driving the vehicle and qua him, Tribunal has considered 10% negligence.

8. Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellants tried to contend that the vehicle which Manoj Kumar was driving was stationery and he is not at all negligent. It is further submitted by Sri Ram Singh, learned Advocate that the quantum of compensation awarded in both the matters are on the lower side and require to be recalculated in view of the latest decisions of the Apex 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 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.

11. The principle of contributory negligence has been discussed time and again. A person who either contributes or is co author of the acc