Claimant in composite negligence cases can recover full compensation from any tortfeasor despite non-joinder of others.

On November 28, 2021, a minor girl, Yanshiben Dilipbhai Chavda, was a pillion rider on a motorcycle (No. GJ-36N-3152) driven by her father. Due to the father’s rash driving and an attempt to overtake, their vehicle collided with an unknown motorcycle coming from the opposite direction

Yanshiben sustained fatal injuries

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Morbi, awarded Rs. 2,62,000/- at 7% interest, but deducted 50% of the compensation on the grounds of contributory negligence because the other involved vehicle was not impleaded

The appellant (mother) challenged the award on the grounds of inadequate quantum and the erroneous deduction for negligence

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in deducting 50% of the compensation due to the non-impleadment of one of the joint tortfeasors in a case of composite negligence

2. Whether the assessment of the deceased minor’s income and future prospects was inadequate based on prevailing minimum wages

The court applied the principle of "Composite Negligence" as defined in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Limited (2015) 9 SCC 273, which stipulates that a claimant can recover entire compensation from any one of the joint tortfeasors as their liability is joint and several

For quantum, it relied on National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 regarding future prospects (40%)

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 regarding parental consortium

The court also utilized the state-notified minimum wages (Rs. 9,490/- p.m.) for income assessment in the absence of evidence

The Court observed that since the deceased was a pillion rider, no negligence could be attributed to her; the accident was a result of the "composite negligence" of both motorcycle riders

Relying on Khenyei, the Court held that the Tribunal legally erred by deducting 50% of the award; the claimant is entitled to recover the full amount from the impleaded insurer, who may later seek recovery from other tortfeasors

Regarding quantum, the Court found the Tribunal’s assessment of Rs. 30,000/- per annum arbitrary. It recalculated the income using the minimum wage of Rs. 9,490/-, added 40% for future prospects, deducted 1/2 for personal expenses (as the deceased was minor/unmarried), and applied a multiplier of 15

Conventional heads (funeral, estate, consortium) were also upscaled to match standard judicial benchmarks

The Court struck down the 50% deduction, holding that the Respondent No. 2 (Insurance Company) must first pay the entire amount to the claimant

However, the insurer was granted "pay and recover" rights to seek 50% of the amount from the owner/rider of the motorcycle GJ-36N-3152 (due to lack of a valid license) and the remaining 50% from the owner/insurer of the second motorcycle

The additional amount of Rs. 10,18,440/- shall carry 7% interest from the date of the claim petition