In a case of composite negligence, the injured third-party occupant may recover full compensation from any of the joint tortfeasors.

On January 9, 2017, the Appellant was a passenger in a Pajero vehicle (CG 15 CW 9099) driven by Vinay Singh. A truck (CG 04 ZC 0369), driven by Respondent No. 1 and owned by Respondent No. 2, collided head-on with the Pajero at high speed.

The Appellant sustained grievous injuries and underwent treatment for several months.

The Claims Tribunal awarded ₹5,64,137, assessing the Appellant’s income at ₹4,500 per month, and fastened liability only upon the truck's driver, owner, and alleged subsequent purchaser (Respondents 1, 2, and 4), exonerating Respondent No. 3 (the Pajero’s insurer).

The Appellant sought enhancement of compensation and a challenge to the liability findings.

1. Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the Appellant's monthly income and the overall quantum of compensation

2. Whether the insurer of the vehicle in which the claimant was a passenger (Respondent No. 3) can be held liable under the principle of composite negligence

The Court primarily applied Section 166 and Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding compensation and appeals.

For income assessment in the absence of documentary proof, the Court relied on notional income based on the minimum wages fixed by the Labour Commissioner.

Regarding liability, the Court applied the doctrine of "Composite Negligence" as elucidated by the Supreme Court in T. O. Anthony v. Karvarnan and others (2008) 3 SCC 748, which establishes that where an injury results from the negligence of two or more wrongdoers, each is jointly and severally liable, and the claimant may proceed against any or all of them.

The Court found the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹4,500 per month as arbitrarily low, noting that for an unskilled laborer in 2017, the State’s minimum wage was ₹9,230 per month.

Consequently, the Court recomputed loss of income and enhanced certain conventional heads like attendant costs and special diet.

Regarding liability, the Court observed that as the Appellant was an occupant (not the driver), the case was one of composite negligence rather than contributory negligence.

The Court referred to a related appeal (MAC No. 747/2021) arising from the same accident, where the Tribunal had already found no breach of policy conditions for the Pajero vehicle. Thus, the Court reasoned that the passenger is entitled to claim compensation from the owners and insurers of either or both vehicles involved.

The Court set aside the exoneration of Respondent No. 3 (S.B.I. General Insurance Co. Ltd.) and held it jointly and severally liable along with the other respondents to pay the compensation. All other conditions of the original award remained intact.