2015 (10) TMI 2528 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Compensation in Composite Negligence, Emphasizes Joint Liability

Kamlesh & Ors. Versus Attar Singh & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, upholding the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Court emphasized the joint and ... Compensation for accident - Held that:- The evidence on record of Ram Parshad PW2 and Devender PW.3. The method and manner in which the accident has taken place leaves no room for doubt that it was a case of composite negligence of drivers of both the vehicles, that is the driver of Maruti car and driver of tempo. Though Police has registered a case against driver of the tempo Attar Singh and has filed a chargesheet but the same cannot be said to be conclusive. Though, Attar Singh has stated that it was in order to oblige the driver of the Maruti car, a case was registered against him. Be that as it may. It appears both the drivers have tried to save their liability. In such circumstances, the version of eyewitnesses, PW.2 and PW.3 assumes significance. The fact remains that car had dashed the tempo on the middle portion near footstep. Thus the method and manner in which the accident has taken place leaves no room for doubt that both the drivers were negligent. Man may lie but the circumstances do not is the cardinal principle of evaluation of evidence. No effort has been made by the High Court to appreciate the evidence and method and manner in which the accident has taken place. Both the aforesaid witnesses have stated Maruti Car was in excessive speed. However, it appears driver of tempo also could not remove his vehicle from the way of Maruti Car. Thus, both the drivers were clearly negligent. It appears from the facts and circumstances that both the drivers were equally responsible for the accident. Thus, it was a case of composite negligence. Both the drivers were joint ‘tort-feasors’, thus, liable to make payment of compensation. The amount determined/awarded by the Claims Tribunal was ₹ 5,81,000/- along with 6 per cent interest from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization of the amount is upheld as no appeal for its enhancement was filed before the High Court by the claimants. It would be open to the claimants to recover the entire amount from any of the respondents, that is from owner, driver and insurer of the Maruti car or respondent No.4, driver of the tempo as their liability is joint and several with respect to claimants. It would be open to the respondents to settle their inter se liability as per the aforesaid decision of this Court. Appeal is allowed. Issues:- Appeal against dismissal of claim petition and setting aside of award by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- Determination of liability in a fatal accident involving two vehicles- Evaluation of evidence to establish composite negligence of both drivers- Application of legal principles regarding joint tortfeasors in cases of composite negligenceAnalysis:1. Appeal against Dismissal of Claim Petition and Setting Aside of Award: The claimants filed an appeal against the dismissal of their claim petition and the setting aside of the award by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The High Court allowed the appeal filed by one of the respondents, the driver of the tempo, on the grounds that the negligence of the driver had not been pleaded by the claimants. The Supreme Court granted leave and proceeded to evaluate the evidence and legal principles involved.2. Determination of Liability in Fatal Accident: The accident involved a collision between a Maruti car and a tempo, resulting in the death of an individual. The claimants sought compensation for the death of the deceased, attributing negligence to both drivers. The Tribunal initially found the driver of the tempo to be negligent and held him liable for compensation. However, the High Court overturned this decision, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.3. Evaluation of Evidence for Composite Negligence: The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence presented by witnesses and parties involved in the accident. The Court noted that the accident was a result of composite negligence on the part of both drivers. The Court considered the method and manner of the accident, concluding that both drivers were negligent in their actions, leading to the fatal collision. The Court emphasized the importance of eyewitness testimony in determining the sequence of events and negligence of the drivers.4. Application of Legal Principles Regarding Joint Tortfeasors: In cases of composite negligence, the Supreme Court referred to the legal principles established in previous judgments. The Court highlighted that in such situations, the plaintiff can sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and recover the entire compensation. The Court emphasized that apportionment of compensation between the tortfeasors is not permissible, and the liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several. The Court upheld the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal and allowed the claimants to recover the entire amount from any of the respondents, as their liability was deemed joint and several.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, upholding the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal and emphasizing the joint and several liability of both drivers in cases of composite negligence. The Court provided clarity on the legal principles regarding joint tortfeasors and the recovery of compensation in such situations.