PARASKUMAR Vs. AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of other 2 appeals being M. A. No. 1430/05 and M. A. No. 1108/05 because all these 3 appeals arise out of one impugned award and secondly, these appeals arise between the same parties.

(2.) THIS is an appeal, filed by the claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short herein after called "the Act") against an award dated 22nd December, 2004 passed by 20th Member, M. A. C. T. , Indore (M. P.) in claim petition of claimants filed under section 166 of the Act against the non-applicants/respondents was partly allowed by awarding to claimants total compensation of rs. 5,76,000/- for the death of "pritesh". The tribunal, however, held that the accident was caused partly due to negligence of deceased himself i. e. Pritesh, who was driving his Car so also drivers of other 2 offending vehicles involved in the accident. The Tribunal, therefore, applied the principle of contributory negligence and apportioned the extent of negligence equally between the 3 drivers of vehicles involved in the accident. This is how the deceased was held responsible for causing the accident by his negligence to the extent of 1/3rd. Resultantly, the Tribunal deducted from the total compensation (Rs. 5,76,000/-)and accordingly awarded 2/3rd of Rs. 5,76,000/-i. e. Rs. 3,84,000/- to the claimants. It is against this award, 3 appeals are filed.

(3.) SO far as M. A. No. 1072/05 is concerned, it is filed by claimants contending that firstly, tribunal erred in holding that deceased was also responsible for causing the accident to the extent of 1/3rd and secondly, compensation awrded to the claimants by the Tribunal is on lower side hence it should be enhanced. So far as M. A. No. 1430/05 and M. A. No. 1108/05 are concerned, both are filed by Insurnace companies of 2 offending vehicles. In these 2 appeals, the Insurance Companies have contended that accident in question occurred due to sole negligence of deceased-Pritesh, hence no liability arising out of accident in question can be fastened upon the non-applicants either jointly or severally. This is how the whole controversy is raised by the parties in these 3 appeals.