In composite negligence, inter se liability must be determined among impleaded joint tortfeasors for recovery purposes.

United India Insurance Company appealed against two awards dated 6-4-2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund.

The Tribunal had fastened joint and several liability upon the Insurance Company (Appellant), the driver (Jitendra Yadav), and the owner (Virendra Kumar Sinha) for accidents involving a Tractor.

The Insurance Company contended that since it was a case of composite negligence involving multiple tortfeasors, the Tribunal failed to apportion specific liability.

In MAC No. 1487/2019, the claimants filed a cross-appeal seeking enhancement of compensation based on the deceased's actual minimum wages.

1. Whether the Claims Tribunal was required to determine the inter se apportionment of liability between joint tortfeasors in a case of composite negligence

2. Whether the "pay and recover" doctrine should apply when a vehicle involved in a composite negligence accident is uninsured

3. Whether the compensation awarded in MAC No. 1487/2019 was inadequate due to incorrect income assessment

The Court relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others (2015), which established that in cases of composite negligence, liability is joint and several, and while a claimant can recover the full amount from any one tortfeasor, the Court may determine inter se liability for the purpose of recovery between tortfeasors.

The Court also applied the principle of Minimum Wages for income assessment and the "pay and recover" doctrine to protect third-party claimants when a vehicle is uninsured.

The Court observed that all tortfeasors were parties to the proceedings, yet the Tribunal failed to fix inter se liability despite a finding of composite negligence.

Applying the Khenyei principles, the Court determined the Insurance Company’s negligence at 60% and the uninsured Tractor’s (owner/driver) negligence at 40%.

Regarding the quantum in MAC No. 1487/2019, the Court found the Tribunal's assessment of income at ₹4,500/- per month to be lower than the prevailing minimum wages of ₹6,000/-.

By recalculating the income, applying a 40% future prospect hike, and using a multiplier of 17, the Court found the claimants entitled to an enhanced sum.

It directed the Insurance Company to pay the entire amount to the claimants first and subsequently recover 40% from the owner and driver.

In MAC No. 1487/2019, the Court allowed the cross-appeal, enhancing the compensation from ₹10,33,900/- to ₹13,55,200/-, carrying 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim application.

Both appeals were disposed of with these modifications.