In cases of composite negligence, the claimant can recover the entire awarded compensation from any tortfeasor.

The respondent, Natvarsinh Rathod, sustained injuries on May 22, 2023, while traveling in a Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) bus that collided with an Eicher Truck

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Rajkot, awarded compensation of ₹27,31,700 with 9% interest

While the Tribunal attributed 60% negligence to the GSRTC driver and 40% to the truck driver, the operative part of the award held both opponents "jointly and severally" liable

GSRTC deposited 60% of the amount and challenged the attachment notices dated February 24, 2026, and March 25, 2026, issued for the remaining 40%, arguing they should not be liable for the truck’s portion of negligence

1. Whether a joint tortfeasor in a case of composite negligence can be held liable for the entire awarded amount despite a specific apportionment of negligence.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s issuance of a warrant of attachment against one tortfeasor for the full satisfaction of a "joint and several" award is legally sustainable.

The Court applied the doctrine of "Composite Negligence" and the principles governing the liability of joint tortfeasors.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court precedents of T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan (2008) 3 SCC 748, Pawan Kumar v. Harkishan Dass Mohan Lal (2014) 3 SCC 590, and primarily Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2015) 9 SCC 273.

In instances of composite negligence, the claimant is entitled to recover the entire compensation from any one of the joint tortfeasors, and the apportionment of negligence between tortfeasors is only for the purpose of inter se recovery between them.

The Court reasoned that the claimant was a passenger, making this a clear case of composite negligence involving two offending vehicles.

It observed that while the Tribunal determined the inter se negligence (60:40), it explicitly directed in the operative order that the opponents are "jointly and severally" liable.

Following the Khenyei dictum, the Court explained that such apportionment is intended to allow one tortfeasor to recover the excess paid from the other, but it does not limit the claimant's right to seek full satisfaction from any one party.

Consequently, since the original award held GSRTC severally liable, the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction or "go behind the award" by issuing attachment notices for the remaining 40% of the compensation.

In cases of composite negligence, a claimant can recover the full award from any tortfeasor held jointly and severally liable.

The Court directed that after satisfying the full award, GSRTC is entitled to recover the 40% liability portion from the owner of the Eicher Truck by filing execution proceedings before the concerned Tribunal.