LexPAWAN KUMAR & ANR. ETC. versus M/S HARKISHAN DASS MOHAN LAL & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 1 PAWAN KUMAR & ANR. ETC. v. MIS HARKISHAN DASS MOHAN LAL & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5906 of 2008) JANUARY 29, 2014 [P.SATHASIVAM, CJI.) RANJAN GOGOi AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988: A B c Fatal accident - Collusion between a truck and a jeep -- Claim petition in respect of victims traveling in jeep - High Court apportioning the liability of driver/owner of truck at 70% and that of driver/owner of jeep at 30% -- Held: Since the victims were third parties, High Court was not correct in 0 apportioning the liability for the accident between drivers! owners of the two vehicles -- Drivers/owners of both the vehicles are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and it is open to claimants to enforce the award against both or any of them -- Order of High Court modified accordingly. Motor accident - Compensation - Principles of composite and contributory negligence - Explained. E A jeep owned by respondent No.1 and driven by respondent No.2 met with an accident with a truck F resulting into death of two passengers of the jeep and serious injuries to third one. As the truck involved in the accident had fled from the spot, the driver/owner and insurer of the said truck could not be impleaded in any of the claim petitions filed by the claimants. The High G Court held that both the truck as well as the jeep were responsible for the accident and apportioned the liability of the driver/owner of the truck at 70% and that of the driver/owner of the jeep at 30%. 1 H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 4 S.C.R. A In the instant appeal filed by the claimants, it was contended for the appellants that since the victims were third parties traveling in the jeep, the correct principle to determine the liability was that of comp'Osite negligence, and the High Court committed an error in invoking the B principle of contributory negligence and in apportioning the liability between the drivers/owners of the two vehicles. Allowing the appeal, the Court C HELD: 1.1 The distinction between the composite and the contributory negligence is clear. Where the plaintiff/claimant himself is found to be a party to the negligence the question of joint and several liability cannot arise and the plaintiff's claim to the extent of his D own negligence, as may be quantified, will have to be severed. In such a situation the plaintiff can only be held entitled to such part of damages/compensation that is not attributable to his own negligence. "Composite negligence" refers to the negligence on the part of two E or more wrong doers. 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. (para 6- 7] (6-C; 7-C-G] F G T. 0. Anthony Vs. Karvaman & Ors. 2008 (2) SCR 291 = (2008) 3 sec 748 - relied on. Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort (Chapter 21) (15th Edition, 1998) • referred to. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Vs. K. Hemlatha & Ors. 2008 (8) SCR 1201 = (2008) 6 sec 767 - cited. 1.2 In the instant case, neither the driver/owner nor H the insurer has filed any appeal or cross objection PAWAN KUMAR & ANR. ETC. v. MIS HARKISHAN 3 DASS MOHAN LAL & ORS. against the findings of the High Court that both the A vehicles were responsible for the accident. The High Court was not correct in apportioning the liability for the accident between drivers/owners of the two vehicles. [para 8] [8-F-H] 1.3 This Court, therefore, holds that the drivers/owners of both the vehicles are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and it is open to the claimants to enforce the award against both or any of them. The order of the High Court is modified accordingly. [para 9] [9-A-B] Case Law Reference: 2008 (2) SCR 291 2008 (8) SCR 1201 relied on cited para 4 para 4 B c D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5906 of 2008. From the Judgment and Order dated 05,07.2006 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. No. 407 of 1995. E Rishi Malhotra, Prem Malhotra for the Appellants. Dr. Kailash Chand, B.K. Satija for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. The appellants were the claimants in the proceedings instituted for award of compensation under F the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). They a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.