A.R.M., UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT v. VEERRAJ AND 4 OTHERS
FAFO/1609/2025 · 2025-07-17
Saral Srivastava
Public Interest Litigationbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 75589 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 75589 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116745 Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1609 of 2025 Appellant :- A.R.M., Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Respondent :- Veerraj And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Jitendra Kumar Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the award dated 23.04.2025 passed by the Presiding Officer/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etah in M.A.C.P. No.179 of 2017 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,64,120/- alongwith 7% interest as compensation to the claimant/respondent no.1.
3. Challenging the aforesaid award, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in the instant case, the claimant/respondent no.1 was pillion rider on Motorcycle No.U.P.- 82-F-7386 which met with an accident with Bus No.U.P.-25-AT-
1397. It is contended that it was a case of accident of two vehicles coming from opposite directions, and the manner in which the accident had taken place reflects that driver of motorcycle was also negligent in the accident, therefore, Tribunal should have apportioned the liability of drivers of both the vehicles to the extent of their negligence in the accident.
4. Be that as it may, admittedly in the instant case, claimant/respondent no.1 was a pillion rider on the motorcycle and he was not negligent in the accident. It is a case of composite negligence and it is settled in law that in a case of composite negligence, it is the choice of the claimant to claim compensation from either of the tortfeasors. The said view is also supported by the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others (2015) 9 SCC 273.
5. As it is a case of composite negligence, therefore, in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Khenyei (supra), the ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable in law.
6. Consequently, the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 18.7.2025/Sattyarth Digitally signed by :- SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad