Najma & Ors vs Hari Shankar Prasad Shahi & Or on 10 May, 2012
vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellants. He submits that
in the F.I.R. itself, which is Exhibit "1", it has been indicated that
drivers of both the vehicles i.e. Maruti Van and Bus, were
responsible for accident. He submits that since the driver of the
vehicle (Maruti Van) died in the accident his name was not
mentioned in the accused column of the charge sheet i.e. Exhibit
10 Patna High Court MA No.205 of 2008 (17) dt.10-05-2012
10 / 14
"2". He has argued that contents made in F.I.R. may not be
ignored and on this ground it was submitted that the learned
Tribunal has rightly concluded that it was a case of contributory
negligence. In support of his argument he has relied on (2007) 13
SCC 476 (ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus PREMLATA SHUKLA AND OTHERS) and also (2009)
2 SCC 75 (NATIONAL INSURNACE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus RATTANI AND OTHERS). He further submits that in
view of fact that it was a case of collusion of two vehicles, learned
Tribunal has rightly concluded for contributory negligence. He has
relied on (2009) 5 SCC 544 (NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED Versus SATBIR AND OTHERS), 2006
(2) PLJR (SC) 287 (BIJOY KUMAR DUGAR Versus
BIDYADHAR DUTTA & ORS.) and (2008) 6 SCC 767
(ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION AND ANOTHER Versus K. HEMLATHA
AND OTHERS). He submits that in such a situation it was
required on the part of the learned Claims Tribunal to record
finding on contributory negligence and the learned Tribunal in
view of collusion of two vehicles has rightly directed the
Respondent No. 3 to pay only 50% of the awarded compensation.
Sri Durgesh Kumar Singh, has also argued that in view of 1998(2)
11 Patna High Court MA No.205 of 2008 (17) dt.10-05-2012
11 / 14
PLJR 486 (Vijay Kant Upadhaya Vs Sideshwar Prasad & anr. )
interest was not required to be imposed. He submits that
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper
and judgment and award requires no interference.