Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90774 Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3657 of 2018 Appellant :- The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Ankur Rana And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sushil Kumar Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- Gaurabh Srivastava,Shivendra Kumar,Vinayak Mithal Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgement and award dated 01.12.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Special (SC/ST Act), Baghpat in MAC No.23 of 2014, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,15,710/- alongwith 7% interest from the date of institution of claim petition for the injuries suffered by the claimant/respondent in an accident occurred on 21.01.2014. 3. Challenging the award, learned counsel for the appellant- insurance company has contended that it is a case of accident of two vehicles namely Wagon-R No.HR14B/3700 and Canter No.UP17A/6522. It is contended that the manner in which the accident had taken place shows that the accident was the result of negligence of both the drivers of the vehicles, and therefore, the Tribunal should have reduced the compensation to the extent of negligence of driver of Wagon-R. 4. It is further contended that the Tribunal has erred in law in placing reliance upon the disability certificate issued by Dr. R.M. Gupta, who has assessed the disability of the claimant/respondent to the extent of 40%. It is submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that in the instant case, it is admitted that the claimant/respondent was travelling in Wagon-R No.HR14B/3700, and therefore, it was a case of composite negligence. It is contended that the law is settled that it is a choice of the claimant to claim the compensation from either of tortfeasors, and if the insurance company is aggrieved, it may lay the claim against the owner of Wagon-R to recover the awarded amount to the extent of negligence of driver of the Wagon-R. 6. He further contends that the Tribunal has not taken the disability certificate issued by Dr. R.M. Gupta rather the Tribunal has held the disability of the claimant/respondent to the extent of 25%. Thus, it is submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. 7. Be that as it may, admittedly, it is a case of composite negligence inasmuch as the claimant/respondent was travelling in Wagon-R. The law is settled that the claimant/respondent can claim compensation from either tortfeasors in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others (2015) 9 SCC 273. 8. If the insurance company is of the opinion that there was negligence of driver of Wagon-R also in the accident, the insurance company may lay the claim against the owner of the Wagon-R to recover the awarded amount to the extent of negligence of driver of Wagon-R. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to contributory negligence is misplaced and is rejected. 9. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to disability certificate is concerned, though it reflects that the disability suffered by the claimant/respondent was 40%, but the Tribunal for the reasons given in the award assessed the disability of the claimant/respondent to 25%. This Court finds that the Tribunal has given cogent reasons in concluding that the disability suffered by the claimant/respondent was 25%. 10. Thus, for the reasons given above, no ground has been made out by the appellant for interference in the impugned award by this Court. 11. Consequently, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 SSharma Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad