### In composite negligence, third parties can recover full compensation from any joint tortfeasor.

The appeals arise from a motor vehicle accident on December 26, 2015.

An Eicher tempo (GJ-16-V-5539) malfunctioned and stopped on the Bagodara-Limdi Highway.

While the driver and the deceased (Govindbhai) were inspecting the vehicle, an unknown truck struck the Eicher from behind, causing it to overturn.

Govindbhai died, and the Eicher driver (Kantibhai) sustained serious injuries.

The Tribunal apportioned negligence at 30% for the Eicher driver and 70% for the unknown truck.

Crucially, the Tribunal deducted 70% of the compensation in both cases, assuming the claimants waived their right to sue the truck driver.

The legal heirs and the injured driver appealed for enhancement and challenged the deduction.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in deducting 70% of the compensation in a case of composite negligence involving a third party (deceased)

2. Whether the injured driver is entitled to full compensation despite 30% negligence, given that he was a "paid driver" covered under an insurance policy with an additional premium

3. Whether the assessment of notional income and conventional heads was in accordance with established precedents

The court applied the principles of composite negligence as established in *Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.* (2015), which grants a claimant the right to recover 100% compensation from any joint tortfeasor.

Regarding the paid driver's liability, the court relied on Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and IMT 28, alongside the precedent in *Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) v. Kandla Dock Labour Board* (2022), which holds that if an additional premium is paid for a driver, the insurer cannot raise the defense of personal negligence to avoid indemnity.

For quantum, the court applied the frameworks from *Sarla Verma v. DTC* (2009) and *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi* (2017) for future prospects and conventional heads, and *Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram* (2018) for parental/filial consortium.

In FA 172/2024 (Death Case), the Court found the deceased was a third party; thus, the 70% deduction was illegal as the inter-se liability between vehicles does not affect a third party's right to full recovery from any tortfeasor.

In FA 3929/2023 (Injured Driver Case), the Court observed that the Insurance Policy (Exh. 29) included a specific premium of ₹50 under IMT 28 for "Legal Liability to Driver."

Per *Valiben*, such a contract enlarges the insurer's scope, making them liable for the driver's risk without a "self-negligence" cap.

Regarding quantum, the Court increased the notional income to align with prevailing minimum wages (₹7,450 for unskilled and ₹7,900 for a driver) and added 25% for future prospects which the Tribunal had omitted or undervalued.

It quashed the 70% deduction in both cases, holding the Insurance Company liable for 100% of the reassessed compensation.

In FA 172/2024: Total compensation was enhanced from ₹2,80,200 (post-deduction) to ₹15,37,300.

In FA 3929/2023: Total compensation was enhanced from ₹47,262 (post-deduction) to ₹3,67,651.

The respondent Insurance Companies were directed to deposit the additional amounts with interest as awarded by the Tribunal within four weeks.