RAMESHWARDAYAL NAMDEO Vs. JAGDISH THAREJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern the orders in all the three appeals as they arise out of the same accident dated 13.9.1998.

(2.) Appellant Rameshwar Dayal Namdeo and others have filed Misc. Appeal No. 481 of 2000 and appellants Komesh Kaurav and others have filed Misc. Appeal No. 482 of 2000. Appellants Shashi and others have filed Misc. Appeal No. 512 of 2000 for enhancement of award dated 28.4.2000 in Claim Case Nos. 36, 35 of 1998 and 1 of 1999 respectively, wherein compensation of Rs. 1,20,000 is provided in Claim Case No. 36 of 1998, compensation of Rs. 2,58,000 is provided in Claim Case No. 35 of 1998 and compensation of Rs. 1,96,000 is provided in Claim Case No. 1 of 1999. All the appeals are filed for enhancement of compensation.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that on 13.9.1998 Vishambhar Singh hired a truck No. MP 07-8722, for the transportation of grain from Gwalior to Indore, owned by Jagdish Thareja, respondent No. 1. The truck was driven by respondent No. 1 and deceased Vishambhar Singh was sitting in the truck. Respondent No. 1 was driving the truck at a high speed and at about 4.30 in the evening near village Maharajpura the truck was hit by another truck No. MP 08-D 0925 which was coming from Shivpuri. Truck No. MP 08-D 0925 was driven by respondent No. 3 and he was driving the truck very rashly and negligently. Due to said accident Vishambhar Singh died on the spot. Mahesh Yadav was also sitting in the truck No. MP 07-8722, he was also badly injured and died on the spot. Ramkishore who was cleaner in truck No. MP 08-D 0925 was also badly injured and died on the spot. Truck No. MP 08-D 0925 was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver of the said truck, respondent No. 3 and it collided with truck No. MP 07-8722. In all, three persons died including cleaner of truck No. MP 08-D 0925. The Tribunal has referred to the pleadings of the parties, wherein it is clearly mentioned that both the trucks were driven in a rash and negligent manner and on account of negligence of drivers there was head-on collision. Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that since both the drivers could not control their vehicles, therefore, accident occurred on account of negligence of drivers of both the vehicles and, therefore, driver, owner and insurance company of both the vehicles are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. It could not be proved that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of any truck. As such owners of both the vehicles and insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Therefore, we hold that it is a case of composite negligence and the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that this is a case of composite negligence.