In composite negligence, a claimant may recover full compensation from any one tortfeasor.

On 17 February 2005, the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle on the Rajkot–Bhavnagar Road when it collided with an unidentified vehicle; the deceased died from injuries sustained in the accident

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajkot, allowed the claim petition and made an award dated 11 March 2014.

The insurer appealed, arguing that the Tribunal had not assessed the negligence of both vehicles and that liability should not have been imposed on the insured motorcycle’s owner and insurer when the other vehicle was unidentified.

Whether the insurer could challenge the award on the ground that the Tribunal had not apportioned negligence between the motorcycle and the unidentified vehicle

Whether the claimants could recover compensation from the insured motorcycle’s owner and insurer without joining the driver or owner of the unidentified vehicle

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

Under the doctrine of composite negligence, a claimant may sue either or both joint tortfeasors and recover the entire compensation from any one of them; apportionment between tortfeasors is not made against the claimant. Where all tortfeasors are not joined, the Tribunal should not determine their respective shares of negligence; any claim for contribution may be pursued separately (Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2015) 9 SCC 273, para. 22, quoted at pp. 5–6).

Further, negligence of the vehicle’s driver is not imputed to an innocent passenger (Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1997) 8 SCC 683, quoted in Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati Rangole, AIR 2024 SC 4627, para. 18, pp. 6–7).

The deceased was a pillion passenger, and the evidence established that the motorcycle and an unidentified vehicle were involved in the fatal accident.

The Court treated the accident as a case of composite negligence and held that the claimants could seek full compensation from one tortfeasor without joining the other.

Because the unidentified vehicle’s owner or driver was not before the Tribunal, it was not necessary to apportion negligence between the vehicles in the claimants’ proceedings.

The driver’s alleged negligence also could not be attributed to the deceased passenger.

The Tribunal’s approach was described as mechanical, but that did not justify setting aside the award.

The First Appeal was dismissed; the connected civil application was disposed of as not surviving, and the record and proceedings were ordered returned to the concerned court.