JUDGMENT
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.
1. In the appeal filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 against an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota on 3.12.1981, a cross-objection has also been filed by P.A. Vargis-claimant respondent No. 1 for enhancement of compensation and modifying the decree and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. The claimant respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), Kola for his personal injuries allegedly received by him in an accident which took place at 6.30 A.M. on 20th January 1978 when he was going from Kota station to city in an auto-rickshaw No. R.S.R. 8278 driven by one Shiv Prasad. According to the claimant-respondent, when auto-rickshaw reached near Military chauraha, it was dashed by an oncoming truck No. RJR 6625, which was being driven by respondent-non claimant No. 3, namely, Ram Gopal, violating the rules of one way traffic resulting into injuries to the claimant-respondent No. 1, namely P.A. Vargis and the auto-rickshaw driver Shiv Prasad. The claim was contested by National Insurance Co. Ltd., asserting that truck No. 6625 was not being rashly and negligently driven at the relevant time but the accident actual ly occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the auto-rickshaw driver.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, four issues were framed. Issue No. 3 is relevant which runs as under:
KYA PRARTHIGAN MRITAK KE ‘LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES’ HAIN AUR MRITAK DIMRITYUE DE LIYE CHATIPURTIRASHI PANE KE ADHIKARI HAIN ?AUR YADI HAN, TO KITNI ?
Under this issue, the Tribunal held that Shiv Prasad, the auto-rickshaw driver was dead and his non-implendment as a defendant in the claim-petition did not affect its maintainability. By its judgment dated 3rd Dec. 1981, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 24, 125 against the National Insurance Co. Ltd., with an Interest @ 6% per annum apportioning the liability of the truck owner with that of the auto-rickshaw at 50-50. Aggrieved by the award, the present appeal has been filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of the case. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of National Insurance Co. Ltd., could not satisfy me that the award of Rs. 24, 125 was in any way illegal or erroneous. It is to be remembered that an insurance company has limited pleas to be taken. The injuries received by the claimant-respondent an mentioned in the judgment of the Tribunal. Those injuries were caused to the claimant-respondent due to the rash and negligent driving on the port of truck as well as the auto-rickshaw drivers in the middle of the road and it was because of the head-on collision between them that the accident occurred. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the National Insurance Company.
5. So far as the cross-objection of the claimant-respondent No. 1, is concerned, learned Counsel for the respondents made two submissions; one about the enhancement of the compensation, and the second, that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the court was wrong in holding the drivers of the two vehicles to be guilty of the contributory negligence for the accident. In fact, they were liable for composite negligence and as such, the award should have been passed indicating the same. In that event, the learned Counsel submitted that the respondent-claimant should have executed the award for the entire amount against the insurance company and there was no occasion for bifurcating the same.
6. ‘Contributory negligence’ applies to the conduct of the claimant alone. Therefore, if an accident occurs due to the negligence or omission of the claimant, which has materially contributed to the accident and resulted in injury and damages, the matter comes within the concept of ‘contributory negligence’. In the instant case, the Tribunal did not find that the claimant contributed to that accident. ‘Composite negligence’ is different than ‘contributory negligence’. It is a case when the accident occurs and the resulted injuries and damages flow without any negligence on the part of the claimant but as a result of the negligence on the part of two or more persons. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the Tribunal should have passed a ‘composite’ decree against the owners of the truck and auto-rickshaw.
7. As regards enhancement of compensation, nothing could be shown to me by the learned Counsel for the claimant-respondent on the basis of which prayer for enhancement of compensation can be justified for the injuries received by the claimant. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the amount was rightly arrived at on the basis of the salary of the claimant-respondent at the relevant time. From the record, I find that no permanent disability has been caused to the claimant. In this view of the matter, I reject this submission.
8. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with cost to the claimant-respondent No. 1. Cross-objection filed by the claimant-respondent is also rejected. The decree and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 3.12.1981 arc maintained except to the extent as indicated in the body of this judgment.