Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a judgment and award dated 01.04.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Achalpur in Claim Petition No. 62 of 2010. The respondents 1 and 2, parents of deceased Ashishkumar, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging that their son died due to composite negligence of the drivers of a tipper truck (insured by the appellant) and a luxury bus. The deceased, a 22-year-old engineering graduate, had a job offer with a salary of Rs.25,000 per month. The Tribunal found both drivers negligent and awarded compensation of Rs.14,50,000 with interest at 6% per annum, holding the appellant (insurer of the tipper truck) liable to pay the entire amount. The appellant appealed, contending that the owner and insurer of the luxury bus were necessary parties and that the liability should be apportioned. The High Court held that in cases of composite negligence, the claimants are entitled to recover the entire compensation from any one of the joint tortfeasors, and the insurer cannot insist on joinder of the other tortfeasor. The insurer, after paying the award, can recover contribution from the other tortfeasor in separate proceedings. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Composite Negligence - Joint Tortfeasors - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Claimants sought compensation for death of their son in a road accident involving a tipper truck and a luxury bus - Tribunal held both drivers negligent and awarded compensation against the insurer of the tipper truck - Insurer appealed arguing non-joinder of the bus owner - Held that in composite negligence, claimants can recover entire amount from any joint tortfeasor; insurer can later recover contribution from other tortfeasor - Appeal dismissed (Paras 1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether in a case of composite negligence, the claimants can recover the entire compensation from one of the joint tortfeasors and whether the insurer can insist on joining the other tortfeasor as a necessary party.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Achalpur dated 01.04.2013 in Claim Petition No. 62 of 2010 is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Composite negligence
- joint tortfeasors
- right to recover contribution
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 166
- necessary parties
- insurer liability
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (01) 141
First Appeal No. 605 of 2013
Mr. A.M. Quazi for Appellant, Mr. P.R. Agrawal for Respondents 1 and 2, Mr. Dippen Jagyasi h/f Mr. Sham Dewani for Respondent No. 4
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Naina w/o Bapurao Bhamodkar, Bapurao s/o Kisanrao Bhamodkar, Jaidev s/o Pandurang Borkar, M/s D.P. Jain & Co. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against award of compensation in motor accident claim petition.
Remedy Sought
Appellant insurer sought to set aside the award or to direct apportionment of liability with owner of luxury bus.
Filing Reason
Insurer contended that the owner and insurer of the luxury bus were necessary parties and that the liability should be shared.
Previous Decisions
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Achalpur awarded Rs.14,50,000 with interest at 6% per annum against the appellant insurer.
Issues
Whether in composite negligence, claimants can recover entire compensation from one joint tortfeasor without joining the other?
Whether the insurer can insist on joinder of the other tortfeasor as a necessary party?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the owner and insurer of the luxury bus were necessary parties and should have been joined; liability should be apportioned.
Claimants argued that in composite negligence, they are entitled to recover from any joint tortfeasor; the insurer can later recover contribution.
Ratio Decidendi
In cases of composite negligence, the claimants are entitled to recover the entire compensation from any one of the joint tortfeasors. The insurer, after paying the award, can recover contribution from the other tortfeasor in separate proceedings. The other tortfeasor is not a necessary party in the claim petition.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal arises out of the judgment and Award passed on 01.04.2013 in Claim Petition No. 62 of 2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Achalpur.
The respondents 1 and 2 are the claimants who had filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the appellant and respondents 3 and 4 respectively, being the insurer of the tipper truck and driver and owner of the tipper truck.
It was the contention of the respondents 1 and 2 that their son Ashish Kumar was travelling by the luxury bus on 20.4.2010 when the said tipper truck gave a violent dash to the luxury bus, and it resulted in sustaining of grievous injuries by Ashish.
The Accident Claim Tribunal framed several issues and upon consideration of the evidence available on record, it found that the death of Ashish Kumar had occurred due to composite negligence of the drivers of the luxury bus and said tipper truck, that the owner and insurer company of the luxury bus were not necessary parties as it was the case of composite negligence, and that the appellant was liable to pay the compensation.
Procedural History
Claim Petition No. 62 of 2010 filed by respondents 1 and 2 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Achalpur under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Tribunal awarded compensation on 01.04.2013. Appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. filed First Appeal No. 605 of 2013 before Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. High Court dismissed appeal on 29.01.2014.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 166
