Karnataka High Court
Insurance LawCivil Law

Where both insurers are parties, each must deposit its apportioned share for composite negligence.

GO DIGIT GENERAL INSURANCE LTD., vs SMT.JAYAMMA

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: October 08, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Where both insurers are parties, each must deposit its apportioned share for composite negligence.. GO DIGIT GENERAL INSURANCE LTD., vs SMT.JAYAMMA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The appeals arose from a common judgment and award in four motor accident claim petitions concerning a collision between a lorry insured by Go Digit General Insurance Ltd. and a car insured by United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Source reference: pp. 9–13

The Tribunal found the drivers equally negligent and held the owners and insurers jointly and severally liable.

Source reference: pp. 9–13

It directed Go Digit to deposit the entire compensation, with liberty to recover 50% from United India in execution.

Source reference: pp. 9–13

Go Digit appealed that direction.

Source reference: pp. 9–13
02

Issues

Whether, after finding the lorry and car drivers equally negligent and both insurers before it, the Tribunal could direct Go Digit alone to deposit the entire award and recover 50% from United India

Source reference: pp. 9–14

Whether the insurers should instead each be directed to deposit 50% of the compensation awarded, with interest.

Source reference: pp. 10–14
03

Law Applied

The Court applied the doctrine of composite negligence, under which joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable to the injured claimant, who may sue one or all of them for the full compensation.

Source reference: pp. 12–13

It relied on Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2015) 9 SCC 273, cited by the Tribunal, for that principle.

Source reference: pp. 12–13

The Court further held that where both joint tortfeasors and their insurers are parties and negligence has been apportioned equally, the Tribunal should direct each insurer to deposit its respective 50% share.

Source reference: pp. 13–14

The appeals were brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Source reference: pp. 2–8
04

Reasoning

The Tribunal’s finding that both drivers were equally negligent was not disturbed.

Source reference: pp. 13–14

The Court accepted that the claimants could proceed against either or both joint tortfeasors, but noted that both insurers were parties and that the Tribunal had already apportioned negligence equally.

Source reference: pp. 13–14

In those circumstances, requiring Go Digit to pay the whole award and pursue recovery of half from United India was not the appropriate direction; each insurer should deposit half of the award with interest.

Source reference: pp. 13–14
05

Holding

The Court allowed all four appeals in part.

It directed Go Digit and United India each to deposit 50% of the award, with interest, in the four claim petitions within six weeks.

Source reference: pp. 14–15

Any amount already in deposit was ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal.

Source reference: pp. 14–15
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Motor Vehicles Act, 19881

Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

GO DIGIT GENERAL INSURANCE LTD.,vsSMT.JAYAMMA

Karnataka High Court · October 08, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment