Composite negligence may be inferred from head-on collision evidence and the scene-of-accident sketch.

On 9 March 2023, Kanchana was travelling as a passenger in a Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No. TN 25 N 0281.

Near Sammanthanur Koot Road on the Tindivanam–Tiruvannamalai Road, the bus collided with a two-wheeler and capsized, causing the claimant multiple injuries.

The Transport Corporation contended that the accident was caused solely by the rash and negligent driving of the two-wheeler rider, and also pleaded non-joinder of the two-wheeler’s owner and insurer.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal conducted a joint trial with two connected claim petitions and, relying on the FIR, police records, the evidence of the bus driver and police official, the rough sketch, and the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s reports, found composite negligence on the part of both vehicles.

It awarded the claimant ₹3,35,500 under various heads, including permanent disability, pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of amenities, and loss of income during treatment.

The Transport Corporation challenged both the finding on negligence and the quantum under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Whether the accident was caused solely by the negligence of the two-wheeler rider, or by the composite negligence of both the bus and the two-wheeler?

Whether the claimant’s failure to implead the owner and insurer of the two-wheeler rendered the claim petition liable to dismissal for non-joinder of necessary parties?

Whether the compensation of ₹3,35,500 awarded by the Tribunal was excessive or otherwise liable to interference?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits an appeal against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

In cases of composite negligence, an injured claimant is entitled to recover the whole compensation from any one of the joint tortfeasors, leaving the tortfeasors to work out contribution between themselves; the Court relied on APSRTC v. K. Hemalatha, Order dated 28 April 2008 in SLP(C) Nos. 10950–10953 of 2005, as applied by the Tribunal.

For assessment of injury compensation, where medical evidence establishes a percentage of permanent disability but there is no proof that it impaired earning capacity, the percentage method may be adopted rather than a multiplier-based loss-of-earning-capacity calculation.

Compensation must otherwise reflect the claimant’s proved medical expenses, treatment, injuries, disability, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, attendant charges, nourishment, transportation, and loss of income during treatment.

The Court found that the Transport Corporation failed to establish that the two-wheeler rider was solely responsible for the accident.

Although the bus driver deposed that the two-wheeler had been driven rashly, no independent eyewitness or passenger was examined by the Corporation to corroborate that version.

The FIR and final report against the deceased two-wheeler rider were not conclusive, particularly when the rough sketch showed the accident site at the middle of the road and the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s reports showed damage to the front portions of both vehicles, indicating a head-on collision.

On these facts, the finding of composite negligence was upheld.

The claimant’s failure to implead the owner or insurer of the two-wheeler did not defeat the claim, since, under the principle applicable to composite negligence, the claimant could seek recovery from any one of the negligent vehicle owners or insurers; in any event, the Corporation itself had been directed to satisfy the award.

As to quantum, the Court accepted the Medical Board’s assessment of 6% permanent disability and upheld the Tribunal’s award of ₹7,000 per percentage, since no evidence established functional disability or loss of earning capacity.

The awards for pain and suffering, extra nourishment, attendant charges, medical expenses, loss of amenities, transportation, and four months’ loss of income were supported by the medical records, hospitalisation for 11 days in total, medical bills, the nature of the fractures, and the claimant’s unproved but reasonably assessed monthly income of ₹10,000.

It held that the accident resulted from the composite negligence of both vehicles, that non-impleadment of the two-wheeler’s owner and insurer did not invalidate the claim, and that the compensation awarded was just and reasonable.

The Corporation was directed to deposit the award amount with proportionate interest and costs, after deducting any amount already deposited, within six weeks from receipt of the order; the claimant was permitted to withdraw the amount in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.