G.P. Mittal, J. - (1.) This appeal is for enhancement of compensation in respect of an accident which took place on 17.07.2004 resulting into serious injuries on Appellant's person. The Appellant suffered 49% disability in respect of the left limb. By impugned award the Tribunal awarded the compensation as mentioned in para 27 of the award, which is extracted hereunder: Ld. Counsel for petitioner has submitted that on account of disability petitioner will not be in a position to enjoy the basic amenities of life. Petitioner will not be in a position to walk, run or to sit for passing of stool properly. In view of disability having been suffered by the petitioner, submission made by ld. counsel for petitioner has got force and I deem it expedient to allow the request. Keeping in view the nature of injuries, period of treatment and nature of treatment, I deem it expedient to award a sum of Rs. 30,000/ - under the head of loss of amenities of life. The amounts of compensation assessed under the different heads are being chunked together herein below: JUDGEMENT_434_LAWS(DLH)11_2011.jpg The Tribunal found that the accident took place on account of equal negligence of TATA 407 No.HR -38G -3655 wherein the Appellant was travelling as a representative of the owner of the goods and the Truck No.RJ -07G -4310 driven by Respondent No.2. The Tribunal held that since the Appellant had sued the driver, owner and Insurer of Truck No.RJ -07G -4310, the Respondents were liable to pay only 50% of the compensation awarded. Respondent No.1 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.) was directed to pay the compensation awarded being Insurer of the Truck No.RJ -07G -4310.
(2.) An FIR bearing No.276 dated 17.07.2004 under Sec. 279/337/304A IPC was registered in P.S. Sadar, Bhiwani against the Respondent Amar Singh driver of Truck No.RJ -07G -4310 and not against the driver of TATA 407. Respondent Amar Singh preferred not to enter the witness box to rebut the Appellant's testimony in his examination -in -chief that the driver of Truck No.RJ -07G -4310 was driving the Truck in a zig -zag manner, brought it on the left side of the road and applied the brakes all of a sudden. Thus on the basis of criminal case registered against Respondent Amar Singh, his failure to contest the claim petition and the Appellant's averment in the affidavit Ex. PW -1/6 that the driver of the Truck was driving it in a zig -zag manner and had applied its brake suddenly would be sufficient to infer culpable negligence on the part of the Respondent Amar Singh driver of the Truck No.RJ -07G -4310.
(3.) Otherwise also the fact whether there was negligence on the part of both the vehicles or there was negligence on the part of the driver of Truck No.HR -07G -4310 loses much significance in view of the Supreme Court decision in T.O. Anthony v/s. Karvarnan, : (2008) 3 SCC 748 wherein it was held that in case of composite negligence each wrong -doer is jointly and severally liable to pay to the injured for payment of entire damages and the injured has the choice to proceed against all or any of them. It was held that the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong -doer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong -doer separately. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Appellant could recover the damages from the Respondents even if there was composite negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles.;