M.M.PUNCHHI,J. - (1.) A common award was passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal onfour claim applications. The dissatisfied claimants have filed fourappeals being F.A.O. No. 343 to 346 of 1984. Correspondingly, fourappeals being F.A.Os. Nos. 352 to 355 have been filed by the New IndiaAssurance Company Limited being aggrieved against the apportionment andfixation of liability. There were yet another set of four correspondingappeals preferred by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, beingF.A.Os. Nos. 347 to 349 and 366 of 1984 which were dismissed by theMotion Bench in Limine. This judgment would thus dispose of theaforesaid eight appeals.
(2.) A taxi bearing No. CHZ-158 was on its way on 10-9-1982 to Chandigarhfrom Kurali. The inmates thereof, besides its driver, were V.P. Jatharand his wife Mrs. Mangla Prabhakar Jathar, the latter's sister MeenaDattatraya Deuskar and her husband D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar. At 1.40p.m. while on road, this taxi collided head on with bus No. PUB- 3610belonging to the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation. As a result thereofMr. and Mrs. Deuskar died at the spot as also Mr. Jathar. Besides thedriver Mrs. Jathar survived but she received multiple injuries in theaccident. She was removed to the Post Graduate Institute at Chandigarhwhere she was medically treated. Thus, on account of the aforesaidaccident, Mrs. Jathar file one claim application before the Tribunal,claiming compensation due to the injuries received by her and another,joining with her major son, claim application for the loss and damagesuffered by them on account of the death of Mr. Jathar. Additionally,two separate claim applications were filed by three major children ofMr. and Mrs. Deuskar (two being major sons and the third one being adaughter) claiming compensation for the loss of each of their parent.Though the sums claimed were in high figures, the learned Tribunalawarded the following sums: (i) On account of the death of Mr. Jathar Rs. 82,000/- (ii) On account of injuries received by Mrs. Jathar Rs. 20,000/- (iii) On account of the death of Mr. D.A. Dattatraya Deuskar Rs. 60,000/- (iv) On account of the death of Mrs. Meena Dattatraya Deuskar Rs. 48,000/- Besides, the Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 10 per cent perannum from the date of the applications till payment. The taxi was insured with the New India Assurance Company underPolicy cover Exhibit R-2 on the record, whereunder it had assumedliability in terms of Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and interms thereof its liability was limited to the extent of Rs. 10,000/-per passenger. Since the Tribunal had recorded a finding which isflexible with regard to the nature of liability and apportionment theAssurance Company, claiming relief, is keen to have it clarified.
(3.) THE Tribunal has found that the liability was composite. Yet, in thesame breath, it has held that 40 per cent negligence was that of thebus and 60 per cent that of the taxi. Now, these two theories obviouslydo not go well with each other. The apportionment of liability wouldonly arise in the case of contributory negligence. The effort of theAssurance Company on the finding of the Tribunal that the accident wascaused by the composite negligence of both the drivers, is to have itsliability reduced in the terms of its policy Exhibit R. 2 and admittedits liability at the rate of Rs. 10,000/-per claim, shifting theremaining liability on the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, the ownerof the bus. The claimants, however, are aggrieved for the award oflesser sums than claimed. In any case, neither party is disputing thehappening of the accident and the liability of the respective vehicles,leaving apart of the war of words indulged in by the two respectivedriver so the offending vehicles, one blaming the other absolvinghimself of the liability. Still the only point which deserves to besettled is what is the rightful compensation due to the claimant.;