Anil K. Narendran, J.:— This is an appeal filed by the appellant/respondent owner in O.P.(MV) No. 411 of 2003 on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are on the higher side and that, the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
2. In MACA No. 132 of 2008 filed by the respondent/claimant, this Court has already enhanced the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the contention raised in this appeal that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are on the higher side, cannot be sustained.
3. As far as the non-joinder of the driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, the said issue is no more res integra in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Limited [(2015) 9 SCC 273] and followed by this Court in Salam T.A. v. Shaji [2017 (3) KHC 324], wherein it was held that, where a person is injured as a result of the negligence of two or more wrongdoers, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of damages and the injured has the right to realise damages from all or any one of the wrongdoers. All wrongdoers need not even be made parties in such proceedings. It is not necessary also for the injured to establish the extent of the negligence of each wrongdoer separately nor it is obligatory for the Court to determine the extent of the negligence of each wrongdoer in such cases, for the purpose of awarding damages to the injured. Even if all the wrongdoers are made parties to the proceedings and the Court renders a finding as to the extent of the negligence of each of the wrongdoers, their liability to the injured would remain joint and several. The question of apportionment of damages among the wrongdoers does not arise in such cases, for, the liability of the wrongdoers is joint and several and the injured has a corresponding right to realise the whole compensation from all or any one of them. The principle to be followed in such cases is that the insured shall be permitted to realise the compensation from the easiest/solvent wrongdoer. Determination of the extent of negligence between the wrongdoers even if made in such cases would be relevant only when one wrongdoer institutes proceedings against others for realisation of the damages paid by him over and above the damages which he is liable to pay.
4. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the respondent/claimant is entitled for payment of the entire compensation by the appellant and it would be open to the appellant to institute proceedings against other wrongdoers for realisation of the amount paid by it over and above the compensation which it is liable to pay.
5. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Comments