Pramod vs Vasantrao Ganpatrao Gurjar and Others

A.S. Chandurkar, J.—Admit. Considering the issues arising, the appeal is heard finally with consent of parties.

The appellant is the petitioner before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati who had filed proceedings for seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the said Act). According to the appellant in an accident involving a motorcycle on which he was traveling with two other persons was dashed by a motor car owned and driven by respondent no.1. According to the appellant, he suffered 80% permanent disability as a result of the accident. The claim was filed only against the owner and driver of the motor car as well as the insurance company with which it was insured. The learned Member of the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident did not arise on account of composite negligence and as the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent no.1 was rash and negligent in driving the motor car, the claim was liable to be dismissed. Hence by the impugned judgment dated 07.11.2012 the claim petition came to be dismissed.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Claims Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the claim for compensation. It was submitted that on the very next day of the accident, a First Information Report was lodged by respondent no.1 vide Ex. 32. Merely because the report at Ex. 31 had been given by the wife of the appellant on 17.04.2006, same would not be a factor for rejecting claim. He submitted that considering the pleadings of the appellant it was open for the claimant to seek damages from the owner of either vehicles. In that regard he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan and Others, as well as judgment of learned Single Judge in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Pundlik Natthuji Adagale, Smt. Saraswati, Vijay Pundlik Adagale and Jyoti, . He, therefore, submitted that the appellant was entitled for appropriate compensation.

The learned counsel for respondent no.1 supported the impugned judgment. It was submitted that as it had not been proved that the respondent no.1 was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, the claim had been rightly dismissed.

Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim. According to him it was necessary for the claimant to have impleaded the owners of both the vehicles involved in the accident as well as their drivers. It was therefore submitted that no interference was called for with the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.

With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the impugned judgment as well as records of the case. The Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim for compensation on the ground that the negligence and rashness of respondent no.1 in driving his car was not proved. The following point therefore arises for consideration:

Whether the impugned judgment deserves to be interfered with?

In T.O. Anthony (supra) it was held by the Supreme Court in para 5 as under:

"The Tribunal, we find, fell into a common error committed by several Tribunals, in proceeding on the assumption that composite negligence and contributory negligence are the same. In an accident involving two or more vehicles where a third party (other than the drivers and/or owners of the vehicles involved) claims damages for loss or injuries, it is said that the compensation is payable in respect of the composite negligence of the drivers of those vehicles."

Similarly learned Single Judge in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (supra) after considering various decisions of the Supreme Court observed thus:

"The law is well settled, in an accident involving two or more vehicles, where a third party (other than the drivers and/or owners of the vehicles involved) claims damages for loss or injuries, it is said that the person was injured on account of composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of then. The joint tortfeasors may have action of apportionment of the blame between them inter se to enforce contribution, if they are so advised. They cannot insist that they ought to have been sued or proceeded against jointly by the claimant to demand the compensation. Thus in the claim petition the wrongdoers collectively or joint tortfeasors may be proper but not necessary parties to decide the claim for just and fair compensation payable for the motor vehicle accident caused."

Considering aforesaid position of law it is clear that it is for the claimant to decide as against which party he seeks to initiate proceedings for compensation. It is therefore clear that the claim cannot be dismissed only on the ground that the owner and driver of one of the vehicles was not joined as a party. It is for the claimant to seek compensation from either both the parties or from one of the parties.

Thus, it is clear that the Claims Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the claim for compensation. The amount of compensation was required to be adjudicated in the light of aforesaid legal position. Moreover, existence of two first information reports also cannot be held against the claimant as same were lodged by different persons. It is, therefore, necessary to direct the Claims Tribunal to reconsider the application under Section 166 of the said Act. The point as framed stands answered accordingly.

In view of aforesaid following order is passed:

The judgment dated 07.11.2012 in M.A.C.P. No. 108 of 2008 is set aside and the proceedings are remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into correctness of the findings recorded in para 72 of the impugned judgment and the Claims Tribunal shall decide the claim application on its own merits afresh. Similarly, it is open for the appellant to implead proper parties if he so desires.

Record and proceedings be sent to the Claims Tribunal, Amravati. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 28.10.2015. As the Claim Petition is of the year 2009 same shall be decided expeditiously and by the end of April 2016.

Appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.