F.A.O. No. 5227 of 2009 (O&M) 1
..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No. 5227 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: Sept 23rd, 2011.
Satnarayan .... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Kunal Garg, Assistant Advocate General Haryana,
for the respondents.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
This is an appeal brought by the claimant against the
award dated 5.6.2009 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Chandigarh (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby a sum of
Rs.2,50,000/- has though been awarded as compensation to the
claimant with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, yet,
respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have been burdened with the responsibility
of depositing 50% of the said amount. The facts necessary for
decision of this appeal are as under:
On 30.1.2006, at about 9.30 PM, the claimant was
going from Chandigarh to Ambala driving his motor cycle at a slow
speed. He was moving his motor cycle on the left side of the road.
He was in front of Khanna Palace near village Kakru, when an
F.A.O. No. 5227 of 2009 (O&M) 2
..
unknown truck came from his back side and had made a contact
with his motor cycle. On account of the same, the motor cycle
went out of control of the claimant. In the meanwhile, a bus
bearing registration No. HR-38H-7427 came from the opposite
direction at a very high speed. It came on the wrong side of the
road and had hit the motor cycle of the claimant, on account of
which, he fell down and suffered serious injuries.
After notice, respondents appeared and resisted the
claim and after framing issues and taking evidence, learned
Tribunal passed the award dated 5.6.2009.
The accident is found by learned Tribunal to be an
outcome of contributory negligence of the driver of unknown truck
and the bus of Haryana Roadways and for this reason, order of
sharing of the responsibility to pay compensation was made.
Learned Tribunal has erred in holding it to be a case of
contributory negligence. It was found proved by learned Tribunal
that there was no negligence or rashness on the part of the
claimant in driving his motor cycle. The negligence had been on the
part of truck driver and bus driver and, therefore, it is a case of
composite negligence. In such a case, the claimant is entitled to
claim compensation from one of the tort-feasors. The entire claim
can be enforced against the Haryana Roadways and after payment
of the entire compensation, the Haryana Roadways would,
however, get a right to recover 50% of the amount, so paid, from
the other tort-feasor.
In these circumstances, the appeal is allowed, holding
F.A.O. No. 5227 of 2009 (O&M) 3
..
the appellant to be entitled to enforce the award against the
respondents, who shall then get the right to recover 50% of the
amount paid by them from the other tort feasor.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK)
JUDGE
23.09.2011.
som
