In composite negligence, an injured claimant may recover entire compensation from either vehicle’s tortfeasor.

On 9 March 2023, Bhuvana was travelling as a passenger in a Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No. TN 25 N 0281 near Sammanthanur Koot Road on the Tindivanam–Tiruvannamalai Road.

The bus collided with a two-wheeler and capsized, causing the claimant multiple grievous injuries, including an L1 wedge-compression fracture.

The Corporation denied negligence, attributed the accident solely to the two-wheeler rider, and contended that the owner and insurer of the two-wheeler were necessary parties.

The Tribunal conducted a joint trial with two other connected claims and, relying on the FIR, evidence of the bus driver and police official, rough sketch, and Motor Vehicle Inspector’s reports, held that the accident resulted from composite negligence of both vehicles.

The Tribunal awarded ₹5,69,714 under various heads, including permanent disability, pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of amenities, and loss of income during treatment.

The Transport Corporation challenged both the finding of negligence and the quantum of compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the accident resulted from the composite negligence of the bus and the two-wheeler, notwithstanding the police final report against the two-wheeler rider?

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

Whether the compensation of ₹5,69,714 awarded by the Tribunal was excessive or otherwise warranting appellate interference?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, while examining the Tribunal’s findings on negligence and compensation.

It applied the doctrine of composite negligence, under which a claimant injured by the combined negligence of two vehicles may recover the entire compensation from the owner or insurer of either vehicle, leaving issues of contribution between the tortfeasors to be resolved separately.

The Court relied on APSRTC v. K. Hemalatha and Others, Order dated 28 April 2008 in SLP(C) Nos.10950–10953 of 2005, as cited by the Tribunal.

For quantum, the Court accepted the percentage method for assessing non-functional permanent disability where no evidence established loss of earning capacity, and upheld reasonable awards supported by medical records and bills.

The Court held that the police final report against the deceased two-wheeler rider was not conclusive in the claim proceedings.

The bus driver’s testimony was not corroborated by any independent eyewitness or passenger, whereas the rough sketch placed the accident at the middle of the road and the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s reports showed damage to the front portions of both vehicles, consistent with a head-on collision.

These circumstances supported the Tribunal’s finding that both vehicles had failed to maintain their respective lanes and had contributed to the accident.

The Corporation’s failure to implead the owner or insurer of the two-wheeler did not defeat the claimant’s remedy against the Corporation in a composite-negligence case.

On quantum, the Court found that the Medical Board had assessed 15% permanent disability, but there was no evidence that the disability impaired the claimant’s earning capacity; accordingly, the Tribunal rightly adopted the percentage method at ₹7,000 per percentage, awarding ₹1,05,000.

The awards for pain and suffering, extra nourishment, attendant charges, medical expenses, loss of amenities, and six months’ loss of income were supported by the medical records, treatment period, medical bills, and the claimant’s occupation and income evidence.

No perversity or legal error warranting appellate interference was established.

It affirmed the finding of composite negligence and held that the claimant could recover the compensation from the Corporation despite the non-joinder of the two-wheeler’s owner and insurer.

The compensation of ₹5,69,714 was found reasonable and was upheld.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the award dated 27 June 2025 in MCOP No.693 of 2023 was confirmed.

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

No costs were awarded in the appeal, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.