In composite negligence, the claimant may recover the entire award jointly and severally from all tortfeasors.

On 26 December 2013, the appellant was injured while riding as a pillion passenger on a motorcycle that collided with a truck.

His left leg was amputated below the knee.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded him Rs. 4,97,800 with 9% interest, apportioning liability 80:20 between the motorcycle and truck sides.

The claimant appealed, seeking enhanced compensation and challenging the apportionment of liability

Whether the claimant’s below-knee amputation warranted treating his functional disability and loss of earning capacity as 100%.

Whether, in a claim involving composite negligence, the claimant could recover the entire compensation jointly and severally from the tortfeasors, rather than being bound by the Tribunal’s apportionment of liability.

Whether the compensation under the relevant heads, including future loss of income and non-pecuniary and medical expenses, should be enhanced.

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

Under Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, physical disability is not automatically equivalent to loss of earning capacity; the Tribunal must assess the disability’s effect on the claimant’s actual work and earning capacity.

The Court relied on M. Paramesh v. VRL Logistics Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 641, applying that distinction and recognizing that functional disability may be assessed at 100% where the injury effectively prevents the claimant from continuing his livelihood.

It also applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for future prospects.

In cases of composite negligence, a claimant may recover the full compensation from any or all tortfeasors; inter se apportionment does not limit the claimant’s right to recover.

The claimant was an office boy earning approximately Rs. 6,500 per month, and the Court considered that his below-knee amputation rendered him unable to continue that work.

Applying the functional-disability principles in Raj Kumar and M. Paramesh, it assessed his functional disability at 100%, added 40% for future prospects, and applied a multiplier of 16.

It also considered the Tribunal’s awards for medical expenses, pain and suffering, attendant charges, and related needs inadequate, and allowed amounts for those heads and for a prosthetic leg.

Because the claimant was a pillion passenger, the Court held he was not contributorily negligent; it therefore set aside the operative apportionment between the tortfeasors and made them jointly and severally liable to the claimant.

The Court awarded an additional Rs. 17,74,400, with 9% annual interest from the date of the claim petition until realization, payable jointly and severally by all opponents.

Any amount already deposited by either insurer was to be deducted or set off, and the insurers were directed to deposit the additional amount within eight weeks; the Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount to the claimant.

The judgment states that the revised total compensation is Rs. 22,72,200 and the additional amount is Rs. 17,74,400.

However, the revised heads itemized at page 11 total Rs. 15,73,000; the judgment does not explain the difference.