AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—Both these appeals arise from the common award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.
The appellant is the Insurance company which has insured the motor vehicle involved in the accident. The accident took place between the Maruti car and a stationary tractor trolley. The car was owned and driven by respondent Neeraj Kumar.
Counsel for the appellant argued that there was a contributory negligence of the driver of the tractor. However, we do not find any worth in the argument. The victims admittedly were not driving the car. If there was any negligehce of the driver of the tractor trolley then also it cannot be said that the driver of the car was not negligent and when this is the position, if the driver of the tractor trolley is to be held guilty then also it is a case of composite negligence and not contributory negligence. As per the settled law the claimant can choose to sue any of the tortfeasors and in such a case the question of contributory negligence does not arise.
The next argument of the learned counsel is that the Tribunal has arred in awarding interest at the rate of 12% per annum. He has relied on the case of Kaushnuma Begam and Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. 2001 128 P.L.R. 334 . However, we have discussed the case of Kasuhnuma Begam (supra) and other decisions of the Supreme Court in our judgment in the case of United India Insurance Co. v. Pinki Walia and Ors. 2001 129 P.L.R. 876 : F.A.O. No. 1864 of 2001, decided on 4.7.2001. In view of the reasons given in the said judgment, we do not accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the rent rate of interest deserves to be reduced. 5. No further ground has been argued.
These appeals are, therefore, without merit and are hereby dismissed.
Sd/- A.K. Goel, J.