All legal heirs of a deceased driver need not be impleaded to determine negligence.

On 11 December 2011, Karan, aged 21 years, was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle No. DL-7S-BL-7567 from Noida when, at a crossing, the motorcycle was hit by an unknown vehicle.

The motorcycle driver, Kishan Verma, and Karan both sustained fatal injuries; Kishan Verma also died in the accident.

Although an FIR was registered against the driver of the unknown vehicle, Karan’s legal representatives instituted a motor accident claim against Kishan Verma, whose mother, Geeta Verma, was impleaded as a party and examined as R1W1.

The MACT held that the accident resulted from the composite negligence of the motorcycle driver and the unknown vehicle’s driver and awarded compensation of Rs.10,98,500/- with interest at 9% per annum, fastening liability on the Insurance Company.

The Insurance Company appealed, challenging both the finding of negligence and the quantum of compensation.

The Court applied the principle in Machindranath Kernath Kasar v. D.S. Mylarappa, (2008) 13 SCC 198, that a driver against whom negligence is alleged must ordinarily be given an opportunity to respond, at least by participation as a witness; however, the requirement must be assessed in light of the facts and the distinction between a “party” and a “necessary party”.

The Court further applied the doctrine of composite negligence, under which a claimant may recover the entire compensation from any one of the joint tortfeasors.

For quantification, it relied on Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 for the multiplier and deduction principles, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 for future prospects and conventional heads, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 for disallowing compensation under the head of loss of love and affection.

The Court distinguished Machindranath Kernath Kasar because that case concerned a living driver who had to be afforded an opportunity to defend the allegation of negligence.

In the present case, Kishan Verma had died in the accident, his mother had been impleaded, and she had been examined as R1W1; therefore, impleading all of his legal heirs served no meaningful procedural or evidentiary purpose.

On the evidence, the eyewitness PW2 consistently deposed that the motorcycle was being driven rashly and negligently from the wrong side and was struck by an unknown car.

His testimony remained substantially unshaken in cross-examination, and the Insurance Company led no contrary evidence.

The finding of composite negligence was therefore sustained.

On quantum, the Court retained the monthly income at Rs.6,656/-, applied 40% future prospects, deducted one-half towards personal expenses, applied a multiplier of 18 for the deceased’s age of 21 years, awarded consortium of Rs.1,20,000/- to the three claimants, Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, and retained medical expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

It affirmed the finding of composite negligence and reassessed the total compensation at Rs.11,61,344/-, enhancing the award by Rs.62,880/-, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with accrued interest within four weeks, and the balance compensation already deposited was directed to be released in a lump sum.

The compensation was apportioned as 50% to the mother, 25% to the brother, and 25% to the father of the deceased.

The appeal was accordingly disposed of.