Composite negligence permits an injured passenger to recover the entire compensation from either vehicle’s owner or insurer.

On 9 March 2023, Venkatesan was travelling as a passenger in a Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No. TN 25 N 0281 on the Tindivanam–Tiruvannamalai Road. Near Sammanthanur Koot Road, the bus collided with a two-wheeler, lost control and capsized, causing the claimant multiple injuries

The claimant filed MCOP No. 684 of 2023 seeking compensation. The Transport Corporation denied negligence on the part of the bus driver and attributed the accident entirely to the two-wheeler rider; it also contended that the owner and insurer of the two-wheeler were necessary parties

The Tribunal conducted a joint trial with two other connected claim petitions. It relied on the evidence of the claimant, the bus driver, the police officer, the FIR, rough sketch, motor vehicle inspection reports and final report. It held that both vehicles were responsible for the accident and that the claimant could recover compensation from either vehicle’s owner or insurer, applying the principle of composite negligence

The Tribunal awarded ₹4,45,122 under various heads, including permanent disability, pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of amenities and loss of income during treatment

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

Whether the Tribunal was justified in finding composite negligence on the part of the bus and the two-wheeler, notwithstanding the FIR and final report implicating the two-wheeler rider?

Whether the claim petition was liable to fail for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the two-wheeler?

Whether the compensation of ₹4,45,122 awarded by the Tribunal was excessive or otherwise unsustainable?

The appeal was considered under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits an aggrieved party to challenge an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

In cases of composite negligence, an injured claimant may recover the entire compensation from any one of the joint tortfeasors, leaving the negligent parties to work out their respective contribution inter se; the Court relied on APSRTC v. K. Hemalatha, order dated 28 April 2008 in SLP(C) Nos. 10950–10953 of 2005

For non-functional or non-proven disability affecting earning capacity, compensation may be assessed by the percentage method rather than by applying the multiplier method; the Tribunal’s adoption of ₹7,000 per percentage for 12% medically assessed disability was upheld

Compensation must be just and reasonable, assessed with reference to the medical evidence, treatment period, medical bills, disability and other proved circumstances

The High Court found that the Transport Corporation did not produce any independent passenger or eyewitness to corroborate its assertion that the accident was caused solely by the two-wheeler rider

Although the FIR and final report attributed negligence to the deceased two-wheeler rider, the motor vehicle inspection reports showed damage to the front portions of both vehicles, indicating a head-on collision. Further, the rough sketch placed the scene of occurrence in the middle of the road, showing that neither vehicle had properly maintained its lane or complied with traffic rules

These circumstances supported the Tribunal’s finding of composite negligence.

The Corporation’s failure to implead the two-wheeler’s owner or insurer did not defeat the claimant’s right to recover from the Corporation, since a claimant in a composite-negligence case may proceed against any one of the joint tortfeasors

On quantum, the Court accepted the Medical Board’s assessment of 12% disability arising from an old right femur fracture with prosthesis. Since no evidence established functional disability or loss of earning capacity, the percentage method was appropriate

The amounts awarded for pain and suffering, extra nourishment, attendant charges, medical expenses, loss of amenities and loss of income during the five-month treatment period were supported by the medical records, bills, treatment duration and the Tribunal’s reasonable assessment of monthly income at ₹11,500

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed and the Tribunal’s award of ₹4,45,122 in MCOP No. 684 of 2023 was confirmed

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