Composite negligence may be attributed to a stationary vehicle’s driver when no contrary driver evidence is adduced.

On 21 September 2002, the deceased, Bhikhiben @ Dhaniben, was travelling in Tempo No. GJ-6-W-9007 when the tempo collided from behind with Tanker No. HR-29-D-1629 near Padmala village. She sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died during treatment.

An FIR was registered at Chhani Police Station, and the claimants filed a petition under the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in MACP No.1661 of 2002, held the tempo driver 80% negligent and the tanker driver 20% negligent, awarding Rs.8,34,960 with interest at 9% per annum from 23 March 2017.

The insurer filed First Appeal No.2249 of 2019 challenging the tanker driver’s contributory negligence, while the claimants filed First Appeal No.2468 of 2022 seeking enhancement of compensation and interest from the date of the claim petition.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in attributing 20% negligence to the tanker driver when the tanker was stationary and the tempo had collided with it from behind.

2. Whether the compensation required enhancement by applying the principles relating to future prospects and conventional heads under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.

3. Whether the claimants were entitled to interest from the date of filing of the claim petition rather than from 23 March 2017.

4. Whether, in a case of composite negligence, the tortfeasor depositing an amount in excess of its share could recover the excess from the other tortfeasor.

The Court applied Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act governing claims for compensation and appeals against awards.

It relied on Bimla Devi v. H.R.T.C. and Parmeshwar Devi v. Amir Chand for the principle that negligence in a motor accident claim is to be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, and not beyond reasonable doubt.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rattani was relied upon for the principle that the contents of an FIR may be considered where they form part of the claim pleadings and are supported by the record.

For computation of compensation, the Court applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, including future prospects and appropriate amounts under conventional heads.

The Court also applied the principle of composite negligence, under which the claimant may recover the entire compensation from any liable tortfeasor, leaving inter se recovery between the tortfeasors, and relied on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalu Ram.

The Court declined to interfere with the finding of 20% negligence against the tanker driver. Although the tempo had struck the tanker from behind and the tanker was stated to be stationary, neither driver nor owner entered the witness box, and the insurer also failed to lead evidence explaining the circumstances of the accident.

The Tribunal was therefore justified in drawing an adverse inference and treating the accident as involving negligence of both vehicles; the insurer’s appeal was consequently rejected.

On the claimants’ appeal, the Court found that the Tribunal had failed to apply Pranay Sethi. Based on a monthly income of Rs.4,472, it added 50% towards future prospects, deducted one-fourth towards personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 15, resulting in a dependency loss of Rs.9,05,580.

It further awarded Rs.1,93,600 towards consortium, Rs.18,150 towards funeral expenses, and Rs.18,150 towards loss of estate, making the total compensation Rs.11,35,480.

Since the insurer had been served and had not shown that the claimants were responsible for prolonging the proceedings, the Court directed that interest at 9% per annum be calculated from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 25 October 2002.

The total compensation was enhanced from Rs.8,34,960 to Rs.11,35,480, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.3,00,520 before the Tribunal within eight weeks.

The Court clarified that, because the accident involved composite negligence, a tortfeasor paying more than its ultimate share could recover the excess from the other tortfeasor by executing the judgment.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded amount, including any amount already lying in deposit or in fixed deposit, after due verification and deduction of court fees, if applicable.