In composite negligence claims, claimants may proceed against any tortfeasor without impleading every joint tortfeasor.

The petitioner, claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, filed a claim for compensation arising from the death of Ku. Rita Kahra, who was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle No. CG 11 CF 7183.

The accident on 16 July 2017 also involved motorcycle No. CG 11 BA 2616.

The claim was instituted against the driver, owner, and insurer of motorcycle No. CG 11 CF 7183, alleging that its driver was rash and negligent.

The insurer of motorcycle No. CG 11 CF 7183 applied under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking impleadment of the driver and owner of motorcycle No. CG 11 BA 2616, contending that their presence was necessary to determine the respective negligence and liability of both vehicles.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal allowed the application by order dated 6 December 2019 and directed their impleadment.

The claimant challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the driver and owner of another vehicle involved in the accident are necessary parties to a motor accident claim merely because that vehicle was also involved in the occurrence?

Whether the insurer can compel the claimant, through an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, to implead all alleged joint tortfeasors when the claimant has chosen to proceed against the driver, owner, and insurer of one vehicle?

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution and Order I Rule 10 CPC, holding that impleadment is warranted only where the proposed party is necessary for effective and complete adjudication and for passing an effective and enforceable award.

Relying on Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2015) 9 SCC 273, and the principles in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan, the Court held that in cases of composite negligence, each joint tortfeasor is jointly and severally liable for the entire compensation, and the claimant may sue any one or all of them.

The Court also followed Pooja Chamecha v. Manchit Rao Bhaskar, MAC No. 1232/2011, and Savita Soni v. Benuram, 2011 SCC OnLine Chh 423, which recognise the claimant’s choice to recover the entire compensation from any one joint tortfeasor.

Composite negligence is distinct from contributory negligence: in composite negligence, the claimant need not establish the separate degree of negligence of each wrongdoer, whereas contributory negligence concerns negligence attributable to the injured person.

The claimant specifically alleged that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of motorcycle No. CG 11 CF 7183 and chose to proceed against the persons liable in respect of that vehicle.

Although the accident involved a second motorcycle, the Tribunal could determine, on the evidence, whether the accident resulted from the sole negligence of the insured vehicle or from composite negligence involving both vehicles, without requiring the other vehicle’s driver and owner to be impleaded.

Since the claimant could recover the entire compensation from any one joint tortfeasor in a case of composite negligence, the other vehicle’s driver and owner were not necessary parties.

Their possible relevance to the factual determination of negligence did not satisfy the stricter test under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

The insurer therefore could not use impleadment proceedings to defeat or restrict the claimant’s choice of tortfeasor.

The Tribunal’s order dated 6 December 2019 allowing their impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC was set aside.

The Claims Tribunal was directed to proceed against the parties already on record and decide the claim in accordance with law and the evidence.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to impleadment and would not prejudice the merits of the claim, including the questions of negligence and liability.

The interim order dated 5 March 2020 was vacated.