Claimant may recover entire compensation from any joint tortfeasor in cases of composite negligence.

On June 14, 2017, Mahendrasinh (the deceased) was traveling in a Bolero when a truck driven at excessive speed collided with it, resulting in his death

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Dhrangadhra, awarded Rs. 15,82,200/- in compensation, attributing 70% negligence to the truck and 30% to the Bolero

The claimants appealed, seeking enhancement of the award and modification of the liability direction, as the Tribunal had apportioned the payout between the tort-feasors rather than allowing recovery from either in this case of composite negligence

1. Whether the income of the deceased was correctly assessed in the absence of cogent evidence, and if the compensation under conventional heads was adequate

2. Whether, in a case of composite negligence, the Tribunal can apportion the liability to satisfy the award between tort-feasors, or if the claimants have the option to recover the whole amount from any one tort-feasor

The court applied the minimum wage standards notified by the Government of Gujarat for skilled workers to determine notional income

Regarding quantum, it relied on National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 for future prospects and conventional heads and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 for parental and filial consortium

Regarding liability, the court applied the principles of composite negligence from T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan (2008) 3 SCC 748 and Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2015) 9 SCC 273, which establish that tort-feasors are jointly and severally liable to the claimant

The Court found the Tribunal's income assessment of Rs. 6,000/- per month unsustainable, revising it to Rs. 8,388/- based on prevailing minimum wages for skilled labor

It applied a 40% addition for future prospects and a 1/4 deduction for personal expenses given the six dependents, arriving at a dependency loss of Rs. 17,96,832/-

Furthermore, it corrected the "meagre" awards for consortium and funeral expenses to align with the Pranay Sethi and Magma mandates

Critically, the Court held that since this was a case of composite negligence, the Tribunal erred in apportioning the satisfaction of the award; per Khenyei, a claimant cannot be forced to pursue multiple tort-feasors and can recover the full amount from any one, leaving the paying party to later seek contribution from the other

The Court modified the liability direction, ordering Respondent No. 3 (Truck’s insurer) to satisfy the entire award in the first instance, with the liberty to recover 30% from the Bolero's owner/driver through execution proceedings