Joint Tortfeasors are Jointly and Severally Liable for Compensation in Cases of Composite Negligence

On October 4, 2012, at approximately 23:15 hrs, a collision occurred between a Lorry (CG-05B/6453) and a TATA-407 (WB-03A/5145) near a flyover on KP Road. The claimant, a passenger in the TATA-407, sustained serious injuries resulting in permanent disability.

The claimant alleged the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry driver. The Trial Court awarded Rs. 11,56,600 with 7.5% interest, minus the pandemic period, against the insurer of the Lorry.

The Insurance Company appealed, alleging composite negligence of both vehicles, while the claimant cross-objected seeking enhancement based on 100% functional disability.

1. Whether the accident was a result of composite negligence and if the insurer of only one vehicle can be held liable for the entire compensation.

2. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded based on a notional income of Rs. 6,000/- was appropriate.

3. Whether the interest rate and the exclusion of the "Corona Pandemic period" were legally sustainable.

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding compensation claims.

The landmark precedent Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (2015), which established that in cases of composite negligence, joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable; a claimant can recover the entire award from any one tortfeasor, who may later seek contribution from others.

T.O. Anthony v. Karvaran regarding the distinction between composite and contributory negligence.

The Court observed from the FIR that three vehicles were involved and specific negligence could not be attributed solely to the Lorry (CG-05B/6453) in the absence of a charge sheet, confirming a case of composite negligence.

Applying the Khenyei doctrine, the Court held that since the owner of the other vehicle (WB-03A/5145) was not impleaded, the claimant is still entitled to recover the full amount from the appellant insurance company.

Regarding quantum, the Court found the notional income of Rs. 6,000/- appropriate as the claimant failed to prove his specific occupation as an auto driver.

The Court modified the interest rate to a uniform 6% per annum, removing the exclusion of the pandemic period to align with standard practice.

The appellant was granted liberty to satisfy the award first and subsequently initiate independent proceedings against the owner of vehicle WB-03A/5145 to recover the apportioned share of the liability. The insurer was directed to deposit the amount with the Registrar General within 8 weeks.