Composite negligence permits recovery against any negligent tortfeasor despite the other vehicle remaining untraced.

On 15 March 2012, Anil Kumar Maurya, aged 18 years, was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle no. DL-8SAT-1508, driven by Akash. While attempting to overtake a tractor-trolley near 40 Foota Road, Prem Nagar, Delhi, the motorcycle collided with the tractor-trolley, causing the deceased to fall under its rear wheel; he was declared brought dead at the hospital.

His parents instituted a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, initially alleging sole negligence of the motorcycle driver.

The police ultimately filed an untraced report against an unidentified vehicle.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹12,10,000 with interest at 9% per annum, fastening liability on the motorcycle driver and consequently the insurer.

The insurer challenged the findings on negligence and liability, while the deceased’s legal representatives sought enhancement of compensation.

1. Whether the accident resulted from the negligence of the motorcycle driver, or at least from composite negligence of the motorcycle and tractor drivers, so as to fasten liability upon the motorcycle’s insurer.

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement in accordance with the principles in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.

Claims under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are determined on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities.

In cases of composite negligence causing a single indivisible injury, the claimant may proceed against any or all tortfeasors, who are jointly and severally liable; this principle was applied from Pawan Kumar v. Harkishan Dass Mohan Lal, (2014) 3 SCC 590.

An untraced police report or FIR does not preclude a claim against another person whose involvement or negligence is established through available evidence, as recognised in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baby Sapna Saxena, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9942.

For quantification of compensation, Pranay Sethi required addition of future prospects, while United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780, required deletion of compensation for loss of love and affection and permitted consortium to the parents.

The Court found that, notwithstanding the initial pleading of sole negligence, the evidence disclosed a case of composite negligence.

The eyewitness, PW-2, stated that the motorcycle was being driven at high speed, overtook him, and collided with the tractor-trolley; he expressly attributed negligence to both drivers.

His testimony was corroborated by the motorcycle driver’s statement that both occupants were taken to the hospital by a passer-by.

The site plan and the untraced report were not conclusive because they did not determine the complete question of negligence or exclude negligence by the motorcycle driver.

The motorcycle driver had not filed a written statement, gave no substantive evidence denying negligence, and was admittedly driving without a licence; the Court therefore held that, at the minimum, composite negligence was established.

The Court consequently upheld the Tribunal’s fastening of liability on the motorcycle driver and the insurer.

On quantum, it applied a monthly income of ₹12,000, added 40% future prospects, deducted 50% towards personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 18 for an 18-year-old deceased, deleted ₹1,00,000 for loss of love and affection, and awarded ₹80,000 as consortium to both parents.

The Court held that the accident involved, at least, composite negligence and that the insurer was liable to satisfy the award.

The compensation was enhanced from ₹12,10,000 to ₹19,24,400, with interest at 9% per annum; the enhanced amount was ₹7,14,400.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with the Tribunal within four weeks.

₹2,00,000 was to be released to the claimants, while the balance, with accrued interest, was to be placed in successive fixed deposits in accordance with the directions issued by the Court.

Both appeals were disposed of, and any statutory deposit was directed to be refunded to the insurer.