Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 434 (RAJ)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Heer Singh

2005-02-10

DINESH MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BALIA

body2005
Judgment 1. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant, we find that there is no force in this appeal. There is concurrent finding that the death of the victim was caused on account of negligence of the driver of the vehicle which was insured with the appellant company. The case of the appellant company is that there was composite negligence of the truck driver as well as the other vehicle out of which the accident took place and the victim is also to be held liable for contributory negligence. 2. The aforesaid dispute is between two independent wrong doers. The accident which took place was not as a result of concerted action of two vehicles. But drivers of each one of the vehicle was negligent and independently liable to the victim for compensating him. 3. This principle was succinctly stated in Grant vs. Sun Shipping Co. Ltd., 1948 AC 549 and Seth Devendra Kumar vs. Nirml Bai, AIR 1944 (31) Nag 292, that a person injured by the separate and independent acts of two or more persons can recover damages from any one of them or from all. Even if the two drivers involved in accident which caused the death of victim, are treated as joint wrong doers, each one of them is jointly and severely liable for the whole damage. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the entitlement of the victim or his legal representatives to claim compensation against only one or other or against all is not affected. So far as the claim of the victim is concerned, he can maintain claim against any one of them and if that is done, the person by whose negligence the accident has been caused can be made liable to fully compensate the victim. 5. In the present case, the principle has been applied by the learned Single Judge finding that the victim cannot be denied the benefit of claim against owner of the vehicle. Since, vehicle was insured with the appellant company, it was liable to pay compensation awarded against the owner. It cannot restrict its liability qua the respondent claimant only. 6. Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.