IMPORTANT POINT
In cases of composite negligence, a claimant can recover full compensation from any joint tortfeasor, regardless of the degree of negligence attributed to each party.

JUDGMENT :

VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

1. This first appeal from order has been filed on behalf of claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and award dated 8.8.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Bulandshahar in M.A.C.P. No. 61 of 2006 (Km. Cheenu minor through her mother Smt. Rubi Vs. Bishambhar Singh and another) by which compensation of Rs. 1,08,875/- along with 6% interest has been awarded in favour of claimant-appellant on account of injuries received by her.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on fateful day 22.8.2005 the claimant-appellant was returning from Agra to Bulandshahar by Maruti Van bearing no. RJ-01-C-8496 along with her other family members and at about 12 noon when they reached near Village Gijrauli, District Hathras, the offending truck bearing no. MP-6-E-5318 which was coming from opposite direction hit the Maruti Van. The offending truck was being driven by its driver very rashly and negligently. The claimant-appellant had received grievous injuries in the accident and has become permanent disable. The first information report was lodged against truck driver in Police Station Kotwali, Hathras, which was registered as Case Crime No. 263 of 2005, under Sections 279, 338, 304A I.P.C.

3. The claim petition was filed on behalf of claimant-appellant (minor) through her mother under Sections 166 and 168 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 36,05,000/-. The claim petition was registered as M.A.C.P. No. 61 of 2006. As per claim petition, the claimant had received grievous injuries in the accident and had become permanent disable to the extent of 75%. The age of claimant was only 2 years at the time of accident.

4. The opposite party/respondent no. 1, who is owner of truck has appeared before the Claims Tribunal and filed his written statement denying the claim allegation. It was pleaded that the truck in question was insured from 15.10.2004 to 14.10.2005. It was also pleaded that registration certificate, insurance and permit of truck as well as driving licence of truck driver was valid and effective on the date of accident.

5. The opposite party/respondent no. 2 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited has also filed its written statement denying the claim allegation but it was admitted that truck was insured for third party for the period 15.10.2004 to 14.10.2005. It was pleaded that the accident was occurred on account of negligence of drivers of both the vehicles. It was also pleaded that the owner, driver and insurer of Maruti Van were necessary parties but were not impleaded in the claim petition and the claim petition is defective for non-joinder of necessary parties.

6. The Claims Tribunal had framed five issues for determination as rash and negligent driving of truck driver, contributory negligence of drivers of truck as well as Maruti Van, validity of driving licence of both the drivers, non-joinder of necessary party and lastly relief as well as liability for payment of compensation.

7. The claimant had produced Rubi Goel, who is mother of claimant as PW-1 and had also produced documentary evidence to prove her case. The opposite parties have not adduced any oral evidence and opposite party no. 1 had filed documentary evidence in support of his defence.

8. The Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence and materials adduced by the parties, had recorded the finding while deciding issue nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 that drivers of both the vehicles were equally negligent and responsible for the accident. The Claims Tribunal has recorded the finding that there was contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers to the extent of 50-50%. The Claims Tribunal has further recorded the finding that driver of truck was having valid and effective driving licence to driver the truck, whereas the driver of Maruti Van was not having valid driving licence. The Claims Tribunal has also recorded the finding that there is no evidence t