In a motor accident involving a passenger, the accident is a case of composite negligence rather than contributory negligence, regardless of the negligence of individual drivers, provided the passenger did not contribute to the cause of the accident.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants challenging award dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat, on account of the death of Aman in a motor vehicular accident.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.02.2000, Aman Panwar along with Raj Singh, Suneet, Sandeep was returning to Sonipat after attending the marriage ceremony of their friend Sunil Sharma in a Maruti car bearing registration No. DL-4CB-4216, driven by Sandeep. When the said car reached near Mahendra Model School on Sonipat Road, Rohtak, at about 8:00 p.m., a TATA-407 bearing registration No. HR-12-GA-0396, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed, came from the opposite direction and struck against the Maruti car. As a result thereof, the occupants of the car sustained multiple grievous injuries and Aman Panwar succumbed to the injuries suffered in the accident. FIR No.113 dated 28.02.2000 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak. Thereafter, the legal representatives of deceased Aman Panwar filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of his death. Upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal held that the accident was the result of contributory negligence of both the drivers, namely the driver of the TATA-407 and the driver of the Maruti car. The learned Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.10,44,000/- including funeral expenses and held the respondents liable to the extent of 50%, thereby awarding a sum of Rs.5,22,000/- along with interest in favour of the claimants.

CONTENTIONS

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Tribunal erred in holding the accident to be a case of contributory negligence despite the fact that the FIR was registered against the driver of the offending TATA-407 and the evidence on record clearly established that the accident had occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. It is further submitted that the finding regarding contributory negligence is based merely on conjectures and is liable to be set aside. Counsel further argues that the learned Tribunal has applied a lower multiplier and made excessive deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased, resulting in inadequate compensation. Accordingly, prayer has been made for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 supported the award of the learned Tribunal, contended that the award had been passed after a proper and thorough appreciation of the evidence on record and therefore, did not warrant any interference by this Court.

OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record with their able assistance.

6. Upon appreciation of the evidence available on record, this Court finds no infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that negligence was attributable to the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the occurrence. Significantly, the observations made by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in paragraph No.19 of the award are as follows:-

19. In para no.24 of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent no.1, it was averred that the driver of the car bearing no.DL-4CB-4216 was driving the car at a very high speed and in a zi