Saral Srivastava ORDER
Saral Srivastava, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. These two appeals arise out of the same accident and the issues in the appeals are common, therefore, the appeals are being decided by a common judgment.
3. The facts of the case are that on 01.03.2005 Rakesh Kumar Agrawal was driving the Maruti Car alongwith one Munna Lal Agrawal. It was further alleged that at about 9:00 P.m. when the Maruti Car reached near village GhuGhua, it was hit by Mini Truck No. U.P. 93B-5410 driven by its driver rashly and negligently. In the said accident Bunty @ Rakesh Kumar Agrawal and Munna Lal Agrawal suffered injuries. It is alleged that Rakesh Kumar Agrawal suffered fracture and other injuries. Munna Lal Agrawal also suffered serious injuries in the accident.
4. On account of injuries suffered in the accident, Rakesh Kumar Agrawal instituted a Claim Petition No. 593 of 2005 claiming compensation of Rs. 5,34,000/- and, Munna Lal Agrawal instituted a Claim Petition No. 591 of 2005 claiming compensation of Rs. 4,34,000/-.
5. The Tribunal framed number of issues in both the claim petitions. Issue no. 1 & 2 in both the claim petitions have been framed in respect of occurrence of accident and negligence of driver of both the vehicles in the accident.
6. The Tribunal on the issue of negligence of drivers of both the vehicles in M.A.C.P. No. 593 of 2005 held that the manner in which the accident had taken place reflects that there was some negligence of the driver of Maruti Car in the accident, and consequently, the Tribunal held the negligence of driver of Maruti Car in the accident to the extent of 25% and the negligence of driver of Mini Truck to the extent of 75%.
7. However, in M.A.C.P. No. 591 of 2005 the Tribunal on the issue of negligence of driver of both the vehicles recorded a finding that though there was negligence of both the drivers in the accident, but since in the present case the claimant was sitting in the Maruti Car, therefore, it was a case of composite negligence and it is the choice of the claimants to claim compensation from any of the tortfeasors. Consequently, the Tribunal decided the issue of contributory negligence against the Insurance Company and held that it was not a case of contributory negligence rather it was a case of composite negligence.
8. The Tribunal further on the issue of driving licence held that the driver of the Truck was holding a valid driving licence on the ground that the offending vehicles namely, Mini Truck was a light motor vehicle and the driver of the Mini Truck was also holding driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle. Thus, the offending vehicle was driven by a person holding valid driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle.
9. The First Appeal From Order No. 1843 of 2008 arise out of the judgment of Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 593 of 2005. The First Appeal From Order No. 1842 of 2008 arising out of the judgment of Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 591 of 2005.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence in First Appeal From Order No. 1842 of 2008 arising out of the judgment of Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 591 of 2005, wherein the Tribunal fastened the entire liability upon the Insurance Company to pay compensation on the ground that it was a case of composite negligence not a contributory negligence.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has further assailed the finding on the issue of driving licence in both the appeals.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the finding in First Appeal From Order No. 1842 of 2008 has submitted that the Tribunal has recorded the finding that there was negligence of both the drivers in the accident. Hence, the Tribunal has erred in not reducing the compensation to the extent of negligence of driver of Maruti Car in the accident. He submits........