Liability for composite negligence is joint and several even if one offending vehicle remains untraceable.

On March 30, 2009, the deceased, Sh. Ved Prakash, a DTC cleaner, was traveling as a paid passenger in a TSR

At approximately 3:15 a.m., the TSR collided with a truck that emerged from a fruit mandi gate at high speed; the truck fled the scene

The deceased was crushed under the truck’s wheels and died on the spot

An "untraceable report" was filed by the police regarding the truck

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation, finding "composite negligence" on the part of both the TSR and the truck

The MACT relied on the testimony of PW1, an eyewitness, who deposed that the TSR was speeding without headlights and failed to notice the truck

The Insurance Company (Appellant) challenged the award, contending the accident was caused solely by the truck and that liability should be limited to "no-fault liability" under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act

1. Whether the accident was a result of the sole negligence of the untraceable truck or the composite negligence of both the TSR driver and the truck driver

2. Whether the testimony of an eyewitness (PW1), whose statement was not recorded during the police investigation, can be relied upon to establish negligence in MACT proceedings

The court applied the principle of "composite negligence," which establishes that where an accident is caused by the negligence of two or more tortfeasors, they are jointly and severally liable, and the claimant may recover the entire compensation from any one of them

It relied on Pawan Kumar v. Harkishan Dass Mohan Lal, affirming that liability cannot be apportioned between tortfeasors to the detriment of the claimant

Regarding witness reliability, the court cited Kusum Lata v. Satbir, noting that MACT proceedings are distinct from criminal trials and must be assessed on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt

Furthermore, it followed National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baby Sapna Saxena, holding that in head-on collisions where one vehicle is untraceable, negligence can still be attributed to the driver of the identified vehicle if the facts suggest a lack of precaution

The Court found the testimony of PW1 credible and consistent despite his absence from the initial police report

PW1 provided specific details of the TSR’s high speed and lack of headlights, which directly contributed to the collision when the truck crossed the road

The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that PW1’s conduct—going to the deceased's home rather than the hospital—was unnatural, characterizing him as a "Good Samaritan" whose presence was corroborated by the deceased’s son (PW2)

The site plan further supported PW1’s account of the collision occurring in the middle of the road

Applying the law on composite negligence, the Court reasoned that since both drivers were rash and negligent, the claimants were entitled to seek full compensation from the TSR’s insurer

The Court emphasized that the failure of police to trace the truck does not exonerate the TSR driver from his established negligence

The Court held that the accident was a case of composite negligence and the Insurance Company is jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation

The appellant was granted recovery rights against the owner and driver of the TSR due to a fake driving license

The Court directed the release of compensation to the claimants as per the original award and ordered the refund of the statutory deposit to the Insurance Company