Delhi High Court
Vivek Puri vs Man Mohan Singh & Ors on 3 September, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 3rd September, 2012
+ FAO 161/2000
VIVEK PURI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Navneet Goyal, Advocate with
Ms.Suman N.Rawat, Advocate
versus
MAN MOHAN SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Jyotindra Kumar, Advocate for
R-3 to R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. This Appellant impugns a judgment dated 17.12.1999 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of
`4,71,240/- was awarded in favour of the Appellant.
2. Mr. Navneet Goyal, learned counsel for the Appellant at the time of hearing
of the Appeal, confines his challenge only to the extent that since it was a
case of composite negligence on the part of the drivers of three buses bearing
Nos.DEP 4579, DEP 82 & DEP 8757, the liability of the tortfeasors was
joint and several and the Claimant had the right to recover the compensation
from any of the tortfeasors. The Claims Tribunal dealt with the issue of
negligence as under:-
"The rash and negligent driving of the three buses leading to their
collision resulting in injuries to the petitioner sitting in the middle bus
is writ large in the facts and circumstances of the case itself. The FIR
Ex. PW-4/1 and the photographs of the three buses in Exh.18/1 to
18/6, provide the best evidence and the facts speak for themselves and
the doctrine of Respondent ipsa loquitur is straightway attracted. The
FIR version which is also proved by evidence of even the respondent
witnesses shows that the bus driver of the front bus No.DEP 4579,
abruptly halted his bus in the middle of the road in order to talk to the
driver of another bus coming from the opposite direction. He did not
give any indication to stop the traffic coming from behind. FIR Exh.
PW4/1 and the photographs of the three buses in Exh. 18/1 to 18/6,
provide the best evidence and the facts speak for themselves and the
doctrine of Respondent ipsa loquitur is straightway attracted. The
FIR version which is also proved by evidence of even the respondent
witnesses shows that the bus driver of the front bus No. DEP 4579,
abruptly halted his bus in the middle of the road in order to talk to the
driver of another bus coming from the opposite direction. He did not
give any indication to stop the traffic coming from behind as deposed
by eye witnesses PW-5 and PW-6 and even RW-2, who is driver of bus
No. DEP 82. When the three buses in a row collide, the question of
contributory negligence necessarily arises. It is apparent that sudden
stoppage of the bus No. DEP 4579 which was in front, resulted into
the other two buses ramming into each other. The driver of the front
bus has not put forth his version to explain the inevitable stopping of
the bus, for reasons beyond his control. There is neither any reply
from him nor evidence. The facts in the FIR show that he stopped to
talk to some driver of a bus coming from opposite direction. No doubt,
the drivers of the buses in behind too are responsible in not keeping
proper and safe distance as per traffic rules, to allow breaking of
speed and its stopping, yet the main responsibility and blame is to be
shared by the driver of bus No. DEP 4579, and its driver, who are
respondents 1 and 2. I apportion negligence in the ratio of 50:25:25
respectively between the driver of Bus no. DEP 4579, DEP 82 and
DEP 8757 and hold them responsible for the rash and negligent
driving in that ratio."
3. Thus, although the negligence is apportioned in the ratio of 50:25:25
amongst the drivers of bus No. DEP 4579, DEP 82 and DEP 8757, since
it was a case of composite negligence all the tortfeasors were jointly and
severely liable to pay the compensation. I am fortified in this view by the
report in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan & Ors., (2008) 3 SCC 748, where it
was held as under :-
"6. 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part
of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of
negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said that the
person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those
wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally
liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured
person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In
such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility
of each wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to
determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. On the
other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence
on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his
own negligence, then the negligence of the part of the injured which
contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory
negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim
for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his
part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries
stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence."
4. In the circumstances, 50% of the compensation has already been received
which was the liability of the Respondent/DTC as per the impugned
judgment. It is, therefore, directed that rest 50% shall be recovered from any
of the tortfeasors. The tortfeasor who would pay more than his share shall
be entitled to eventually recover the same from the other tortrfeasor.
5. The Appellant would be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum for a period of
ten years and thereafter @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
Appeal till its payment.
6. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
7. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 03, 2012
mr
