Joint and Several Liability of Insurers Governs Compensation Under the Principle of Composite Negligence

On January 9, 2017, the Appellant was traveling in a Pajero vehicle (CG 15 CW 9099) driven by one Vinay Singh toward a farmhouse in Sarganwa

Near Panchanan Hotel, an offending truck (CG 04 ZC 0369), driven by Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road, collided head-on with the Pajero

The Appellant sustained grievous head and body injuries, leading to prolonged hospitalization

The Claims Tribunal awarded ₹2,38,775/- as compensation, assessing the Appellant’s income at a notional ₹4,500/- per month, and fastened liability solely on the driver, owner, and subsequent purchaser of the truck (Respondents 1, 2, and 4), while exonerating the insurer of the Pajero (Respondent No. 3)

Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the Appellant's monthly income at ₹4,500/- instead of following the minimum wage structure

Whether the insurer of the Pajero vehicle (Respondent No. 3) was rightly exonerated from liability in a case of composite negligence

Section 166 and Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding compensation claims and appeals

Wage notifications issued by the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, under the Labour Department

Doctrine of "Composite Negligence" as defined in T. O. Anthony v. Karvarnan and others (2008) 3 SCC 748, which establishes that where an injury results from the negligence of two or more wrongdoers, each is jointly and severally liable, and the claimant may proceed against any or all of them without proving the exact extent of responsibility of each

The High Court found the Tribunal’s income assessment of ₹4,500/- per month to be arbitrary and ignored the prevailing economic realities of 2017.

Even in the absence of documentary evidence of income, the Court held that the Tribunal must use notional income based on the minimum wages for unskilled laborers fixed by the state; accordingly, it increased the income to ₹9,230/- per month based on C-Grade city standards

Since the Appellant was an occupant and not the driver, the principle of contributory negligence did not apply; rather, it was a case of composite negligence

The Court observed that in a related appeal arising from the same accident (MAC No. 747/2021), the Tribunal had already found no breach of policy conditions for the Pajero

The exoneration of Respondent No. 3 (the Pajero's insurer) was erroneous as the claimant is entitled to seek compensation from the owners/insurers of either or both vehicles involved in such a collision

It recomputed the total compensation from ₹2,38,775/- to ₹2,72,425/-, primarily by increasing the loss of income during treatment and the attendant costs

The Court set aside the Tribunal’s finding exonerating the insurer of the Pajero vehicle and held that Respondent No. 3 is jointly and severally liable along with Respondents 1, 2, and 4 to pay the compensation

The award shall carry an interest rate of 8% p.a. from the date of application