In composite negligence, claimants may recover the full award jointly and severally from any tortfeasor.

On 7 June 2021, Vijay Rajubhai Marvadi and Ajay Tulsibhai Marvadi were riding a motorcycle when a reversing dumper collided with it; a truck then struck the motorcycle.

Both riders died at the scene

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nadiad, awarded compensation in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 958 of 2021.

The claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contending that the Tribunal had understated the deceased’s income and the amounts awarded under non-pecuniary heads.

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s income and the resulting compensation required enhancement

Whether the conventional awards for loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium required correction under the applicable Supreme Court precedents

Whether the Tribunal’s apportionment of negligence between the two offending vehicles limited the claimants’ right to recover compensation from either tortfeasor

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

Compensation under the Act must be just, fair and reasonable, assessed through a realistic and holistic approach rather than a niggardly one.

Relying on National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Court applied the prescribed conventional amounts for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

Relying on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780, it applied the consortium amount for each dependent.

In a claim involving composite negligence, the claimant may recover the compensation jointly and severally from any of the tortfeasors; a tortfeasor that pays more than its apportioned share may seek recovery from the other tortfeasor.

The Court found that the Tribunal had not properly assessed the deceased’s monthly income and considered the claimants’ challenge to the amount awarded.

It recalculated future dependency loss at Rs. 14,35,752 and, applying the cited precedents, fixed loss of estate, consortium and funeral expenses at a combined Rs. 1,33,100.

This produced total compensation of Rs. 15,68,852, an increase of Rs. 2,38,252 over the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 13,30,600.

The Court maintained the Tribunal’s 60:40 allocation of negligence between the vehicles but held that, because the claimants were third parties in a composite-negligence case, they could recover jointly and severally from either tortfeasor.

The claimants were awarded an additional Rs. 2,38,252 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until realization.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within eight weeks; the Tribunal was directed to disburse the amounts held by it, subject to verification and applicable court fees.

The Tribunal’s 60:40 negligence apportionment was maintained, without limiting the claimants’ right to recover jointly and severally from either tortfeasor.