Liability for composite negligence requires inter se apportionment even when one insurer is exonerated for policy violations.

On 16.05.2010, two individuals traveling in a metador (Reg. No. GJ-3AT-1065) collided with the rear of a truck (Reg. No. GJ-10V-5120)

The Tribunal awarded compensation in MACP Nos. 910/2010 and 909/2010, holding the owners and insurers of both vehicles liable under "composite negligence" but failed to apportion specific degrees of fault

The truck's insurer appealed on the grounds of negligence apportionment, while the metador's owner challenged the exoneration of the metador's insurer

1. Whether the Tribunal is required to determine the inter-se extent of negligence between joint tortfeasors in a case of composite negligence

2. Whether the driver of a vehicle that is hit from behind can be held contributory negligent if the vehicle’s tail lights were non-functional

3. Whether the insurer of a goods vehicle is liable to cover passengers when there is conflicting evidence regarding the presence of goods at the time of the accident

The Court applied the principle of "Composite Negligence" as interpreted in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Limited (2015) 9 SCC 273, which establishes that while a claimant can recover the full award from any tortfeasor, the Court should determine inter-se liability for the purpose of recovery between respondents

It also considered the duty of a following driver to maintain a "sufficient distance" under Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, as cited in Nishan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2018) 6 SCC 765

Additionally, it looked at the liability of insurers for passengers in goods vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, necessitating proof that the passengers were traveling with their goods

The Court found that while the metador driver was primarily negligent for hitting the truck from behind, the truck driver also contributed to the accident because the truck's tail lights were not lit during the midnight collision, rendering it not "roadworthy"

Consequently, the Court apportioned negligence at 80% for the metador and 20% for the truck

Regarding the metador’s insurer, although the claimants pleaded they were carrying vegetables, the eye-witness admitted in cross-examination they had no goods, and the spot panchnama (Exh. 52) showed no goods at the scene. Thus, the metador's insurer was correctly exonerated as the passengers were unauthorized

It upheld the exoneration of the metador’s insurer

The Court ordered that Shriram General Insurance (truck insurer) shall satisfy the full award to the claimants first and is subsequently permitted to recover 80% of the amount from the owner of the metador through execution proceedings

First Appeal No. 2360/2017 was allowed; First Appeal Nos. 2899/2018 and 2275/2018 were dismissed