SABINA, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has challenged the order dated 14.9.2012 whereby the objection petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal had held that the liability of the drivers of both the vehicles in question was to the extent of 50% each. Insurance Company i.e. petitioner had deposited its 50% share of the compensation amount. Petitioner could not be made to deposit the entire amount of compensation as the liability of the petitioner was only to the extent of 50%. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4,on the other hand, has submitted that the Tribunal had ordered that the deceased had died as a result of injuries received by them in the accident which was caused due to composite negligence of both the drivers. Therefore, the claimants could recover the entire amount of compensation from the petitioner - Insurance company. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in FAO No. 2156 of 1994 wherein it was held as under: - ''As far as the passenger is concerned who was not himself guilty of causing the accident it should only be taken as composite negligence in which event the claimant shall be at liberty to realize the amount against any one of the tort feasors and the respective persons who are liable as masters and insurers. There is no insurance particulars for the car. The insurance Company of the tanker is before the Court. At the option of the claimants the entire amount of what is determined shall become payable with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment. The Insurance Company shall pay the same and recover 60% of the amount from the owner and driver of the Car arrayed as respondent Nos. 4 and 5. '' Impugned order dated 14.9.2012 reads as under: - ''Mr.J.R.Arora, Advocate counsel for the decree holder states that he is ready to address arguments on objection petition without filing any reply. Heard. On behalf of the insurance company, it is argued that the liability of the insurance company was only to the extent of 50% and the insurance company has already paid the amount of its liability. This submission of learned counsel for insurance company is without merit. No doubt in para 18 of the award it was held that accident was caused to due to rash and negligent driving of the car as well as truck by their drivers who were responsible for causing accident to the extent of 50% each, it was also held in para 19 that it was a case of composite negligence. While awarding relief, reference was made to the law laid down in Sudhir Kumar Rana and Surinder Singh and others 2008 ACJ 1834 and it was held that it being a case of composite negligence, the respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of award. In Sudhir Kumar Rana (supra), it was held that '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 wrong doers, it is said that person was injured on account of composite negligence of those wrong does. In such a case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceedings against all or any of them. In such a case, 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 relief granted in the award and law as discussed above, it is held that there is no merit in the objection petition, same is dismissed. To come up on 25.9.2012 for further proceedings. ''
(3.) IN the present case, the claimants had filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of Ashwani Kumar and Rajinder Kumar in the motor vehicle accident. The motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide its award dated 8.12.2011 allowed the claim petitions. While dealing with issues Nos. 1 and 2, the Tribunal held as under: - ''As the accident had taken place in the middle of the road, both the drivers can be said to have contributed to the causing of accident to the extent of 50% each. It is held that deceased Ashwani Kuamr as well as Rajinder Kumar died as a result of injuries received in the accident, which was caused due to composite negligence of both the drivers. These issues are accordingly decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. '' Thus, the Tribunal had held that the deceased had died on account of injuries suffered by them in the accident which was caused due to composite negligence of both the drivers. In these circumstances, the claimants were well within their right to recover the entire compensation from the Insurance company of one of the vehicles. Objection petition was, thus, rightly dismissed by the Executing Court. However, it is ordered that the petitioner would be at liberty to recover 50% of the total compensation from the owner/driver of the offending truck No.PB -12 -A -4629 in question. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.;