SULAIMAN C.M Vs. E.M. VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A 30 year old man who met with a road traffic accident on 10/10/2003 approached the Tribunal claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him. Allegedly while the appellant was riding on the pillion of a scooter, he was hit down by a car. Both the vehicles involved in the accident were insured with the United India Insurance Company. Since the accident had occurred at a Junction, the learned Tribunal found that there was 50% negligence on the part of the rider of the scooter and 50% negligence on the part of the car driver. As the policy in respect of the scooter was an act only policy, it was directed that 50% of the award amount be realised from the insurer of the car and the balance 50% be realised from the registered owner of the scooter. This finding as well as the quantum of compensation are under challenge in this appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the Insurance company. We have also perused the impugned award.

(2.) Admittedly, the appellant was a pillion rider. The accident arose out of a collision between the scooter on which the appellant was travelling and a car coming from the opposite direction. The accident occurred at a Junction. The road where the accident occurred, as per the records, is lying on the north south direction. The two wheeler on which the appellant was travelling was coming from the south and the car was coming from the north. The accident occurred while the scooterist was taking the right turn, i. e. towards east. The scene mahazar would reveal that the accident spot is visible from a considerable distance from either direction. The learned Tribunal found that there was 50% negligence on the part of the rider of the scooter. As far as the appellant was a pillion rider, he cannot be penalised for the negligence of the rider of the scooter unless there is some evidence to show that the appellant also had contributed to the cause of the accident. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was a case of composite negligence of the car driver and the scooterist. In such cases, the injured can proceed against anyone of the tort-feasors as the liability of the joint tort feasors are jointly and severally. Hence, we interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal and hold that the accident was due to the composite negligence of the car driver and the scooterist, their liability being 50% each, i. e. in the ratio 1:1.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that compensation awarded is inadequate. The appellant sustained fracture to both bones of his left leg. He was hospitalised for 15 days. We are of the view that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pain and suffering is inadequate. Hence, we are awarding Rs. 5,000/- more on that count.