AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 20.12.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in case No.T.S.(MAC) 81 of 2016. Respondents No.2 and 3 are the original claimants. They had filed the said claim petition seeking compensation from the owner and insurer of a vehicle bearing registration No.TR-01-K-1543 (of the make of TATA ACE).
One Suman Das was travelling with his friends in the said vehicle for picnic. The friends had hired two vehicles, one of them was the said TATA ACE. While returning from the picnic, as per the claimants on account of the driver of the vehicle driving rashly and negligently, said Suman Das fell down on the road. He was run over by another vehicle bearing registration No.TR-01-U-9651 coming from behind. He sustained fatal injuries. His parents had, therefore, filed the said claim petition claiming compensation of Rs 38,60,000.
The Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs 6,83,000 and further held that the insurance company would be liable to satisfy the award. This award the insurance company has challenged in this appeal.
Two main grounds raised before the Claims Tribunal as well as before the High Court by the insurance company were that the claimants not having joined the other vehicle involved in the accident, the claim petition was not maintainable and further that the driver of the TATA ACE did not have a valid driving license to drive the said vehicle.
In the context of not joining the second vehicle involved in the accident, the evidence on record would suggest that the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place because of negligence of drivers of both vehicles. It may be that the second vehicle following TATA ACE should also have been driven in such a manner that such a mishap could have been avoided. However, the primary duty was that of the driver of the TATA ACE to ensure that the passengers from the vehicle do not accidentally get thrown off. If at all the degree of negligence of the following vehicle would be lesser since if a sudden object falls in front of a moving vehicle, it would be virtually impossible to maneuver the vehicle in such a manner that the impact is avoided. At best this was thus a case of joint negligence of the drivers of both vehicles in different proportions. Insofar as the claimants are concerned, such negligence would be composite. It would, therefore, be open for the claimants to pursue the claim against either or both of the owners and insurers of the vehicles. This is made amply clear by the decision of Supreme Court in case of Khenyei vrs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others reported in (2015) 9 SCC 273 in which it was held as under:
"22. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is as follows:
22.1. In the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several.
22.2. In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tortfeasors vis-à-vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them.
22.3. In case all the joint tortfeasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/Tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tortfeasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of the payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/extent of their negligence has been determined by the court/Tribunal, in the main case one joint tortfeasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings.
22.4. It would not be appropriate for the court/Tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tortfeasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tortfeasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tortfeasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award."
Coming to the question of validity of the driving license, the insurance company does not dispute that the driver had the license to drive light motor vehicle. It is, however, argued that the endorsement of the license was LMV (passenger) which would not authorize the driver to drive a goods carriage vehicle. However, the Supreme Court in case of Mukund Dewangan vrs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 has clarified that a license for light motor vehicle would also include the light motor vehicle which is a transport vehicle. Same analogy would apply in the present case also. The insurance company does not dispute that the driver did have a license to drive a heavy vehicle.
No serious dispute is made with respect to the quantum of compensation.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.