K. Kannan, J. - (1.) The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for the death of a male aged 29 years. He was stated to be a school teacher earning INR 2,782/- per month at the time of his death in an accident that took place on 9.11.1991. The claimant was one of the three persons travelling in a car that dashed against a military truck belonging to the Union. The accident had taken place on a G.T. Road and the inspection of the vehicle carried out and brought through evidence showed that the front portion of the car had been completely damaged, while the right side of the truck had been damaged. The court reasoned that it was a case of head on collision on a high way and apportioned the responsibility as 50:50 and made an abatement of 50% for all the claimants, who were representative of the deceased present in the car.
(2.) As regards the attribution of equal responsibility of both the vehicles, I find no reason to modify the same since it was a case of head on collision on a Grand Trunk road and if the Tribunal has found both the driver of the vehicles to be responsible, I find no reason to take a different view on the same. I affirm the said finding.
(3.) The issue of whether there could be an abatement on compensation or not would truly depend on whether there had been a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased to subject the assessment to an abatement of claim. There is a distinction between a composite negligence and a contributory negligence, which is brought about in the judgment of this court Ms. Sandhya Sikka v. Munna Lal, 2012 (4) Law Hearld (SC) (P&H) 3061 : 2012 (4) PLR 788, referring to judgments of the Supreme Court, and a claimant in composite negligence is at liberty to prosecute the claim against anyone of the tort feasors without suffering any abatement of claim. In a case of contributory negligence, a person who makes a claim or whose representative makes a claim will suffer a loss to the extent of negligence attributed to such person. If in this case three persons had been travellers in the car and if the deceased had been a driver then a case of contributory negligence could have been used to partially abate the claim to the extent of 50% for the negligence found. If he was merely a passenger and not owner then no part of the claim could be left to be abated. I have no evidence before me about whether the deceased was a owner or merely a passenger. If he was a driver, he would be guilty of contributory negligence and, therefore, the abatement of claim would be justified. If he was owner as a person liable to contribute to 50%, the estate of such a deceased owner would be subject to abatement and that will also cause an abatement. If he was neither and he was merely a gratuitous passenger then no part of the claim could be abated. I proceed on the assumption that he was either owner or a driver and having regard to the fact that the Tribunal has already found the negligence of both the vehicles, I retain the abatement of the claim to the extent of 50%.;