A claimant may recover full compensation from any one joint tortfeasor in composite negligence.

On 19 August 2005, Mehulkumar was travelling as a pillion rider on a scooter driven by Gauravbhai Pandya when the scooter collided with a jeep. Mehulkumar sustained fatal injuries.

His heirs brought a claim against the scooter’s driver, owner and insurer.

The Tribunal found the jeep driver solely negligent and dismissed the claim against the scooter parties, reasoning that the jeep’s driver, owner and insurer had not been joined.

The deceased’s heirs appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Whether the Tribunal could dismiss the claim against the scooter parties after finding the jeep driver solely negligent, when the jeep’s driver, owner and insurer were not parties to the claim.

Whether, in a claim involving composite negligence, the claimants may proceed against one alleged tortfeasor without joining the other, and whether negligence may be apportioned in the latter’s absence.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides the appellate basis for challenging the Tribunal’s award.

In Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2015) 9 SCC 273, the Supreme Court held that a claimant affected by composite negligence may sue either or both joint tortfeasors and recover the entire compensation from any one of them; apportionment is not permissible as between the claimant and the tortfeasors.

A court should not determine the respective shares of absent joint tortfeasors, though an impleaded tortfeasor may pursue an independent remedy for contribution.

Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati Rangole, AIR 2024 SC 4627, was cited for the principle that a passenger’s contributory negligence cannot be presumed or imputed merely from the negligence of the vehicle’s driver.

The High Court held that the Tribunal had failed to distinguish composite negligence from contributory negligence.

The claimants were heirs of a pillion passenger, and the driver’s negligence could not be imputed to the deceased passenger.

Further, under Khenyei, the absence of the jeep parties did not by itself bar a claim against an impleaded tortfeasor; nor was it appropriate to determine the absent parties’ respective negligence in their absence.

The Tribunal therefore erred in dismissing the claim solely because it found the jeep driver negligent and the jeep parties had not been joined.

The claim petition was remanded for fresh consideration, with liberty for both parties to lead further evidence.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 12 October 2026, and the Tribunal was directed to decide the claim in accordance with law, preferably within three months of receiving the order.