In Composite Negligence, Pedestrians Can Recover Entire Compensation From Any Impleaded Joint Tortfeasor

On 16.11.2018 at approximately 2300 hrs., one Dilavar Hussain Iqbalbhai Bholawala was riding motorcycle No. GJ-6-LC-2922 (owned by Respondent No.1 and insured with Respondent No.2) with a pillion rider, when an unknown truck, driven rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle from behind and fled the scene.

The motorcyclist lost control and dashed the appellant-claimant, who was standing on the side of the road. The motorcyclist died on the spot; the pillion rider and the appellant-claimant sustained severe injuries.

The appellant-claimant filed M.A.C.P. No. 178 of 2020 before the MACT (Aux.) & 2nd Addl. District Judge, Dabhoi, claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- with interest, pleading composite negligence of the truck driver and the motorcycle rider.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition by judgment dated 04.03.2025.

Before the Tribunal, the appellant had filed his affidavit (Exh.14) and certified copies of the complaint, panchnama, and final report (Exhs.18–20).

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition by failing to appreciate that the appellant-claimant, being a mere pedestrian at the time of the accident, could not be held negligent in a vehicular accident involving the motorcycle and the truck.

2. Whether, in a case of composite negligence involving an unidentified offending truck and an insured motorcycle, the claimant is entitled to recover the entire compensation from any one of the joint tort-feasors, including the insurer of the motorcycle.

The Court applied the doctrine of composite negligence governing motor accident compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act framework, as authoritatively laid down by the Supreme Court in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 273.

Khenyei establishes: (i) in cases of composite negligence, the claimant may sue both or any one of the joint tort-feasors and recover the entire compensation, as their liability is joint and several; (ii) apportionment of compensation vis-à-vis the claimant is impermissible—he may recover the whole of the damages from any one tort-feasor at his option; (iii) where all joint tort-feasors are impleaded and evidence suffices, the Tribunal may determine inter se liability solely to enable recovery between tort-feasors after full payment to the claimant; and (iv) inter se apportionment cannot be determined in the absence of impleadment of the other tort-feasor.

The Court additionally applied the settled evidentiary principle that a pedestrian who has no involvement in the operation of either offending vehicle cannot be attributed contributory negligence.

Applying Khenyei to the facts, the Court held that the Tribunal "seriously erred" in appreciating the appellant's pleaded case of composite negligence involving the motorcycle rider and the truck driver.

The Tribunal "lost sight of the crucial aspect" that the appellant-claimant was merely a pedestrian standing on the side of the road; the vehicular collision was between the motorcycle and the fleeing truck, and therefore no negligence whatsoever could be attributed to him.

Given the documentary evidence on record—the complaint, panchnama, and final report (Exhs.18–20)—the Tribunal's findings on negligence were held to be erroneous and contrary to the material on record.

Since composite negligence renders the joint tort-feasors jointly and severally liable, the dismissal of the claim petition could not be sustained; however, rather than computing compensation itself, the Court found it appropriate to remand the matter for fresh merits adjudication in light of the Khenyei principles.

The impugned judgment and award dated 04.03.2025 passed by the MACT (Aux.) & 2nd Addl. District Judge, Dabhoi in M.A.C.P. No. 178 of 2020 was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for adjudication afresh on merits.

The Court directed that: (i) the Tribunal shall decide uninfluenced by the quashing of its earlier order and on its own merits after hearing both sides; (ii) the claim petition be disposed of expeditiously, preferably within six months from receipt of the writ of the order; (iii) both sides shall cooperate in the proceedings; and (iv) there shall be no order as to costs, with the Registry directed to transmit the record and proceedings to the Tribunal forthwith.