The primary dispute centered on the Tribunal's (and High Court's upheld) characterization of the accident as involving "composite negligence" between the two drivers, leading to an automatic 50:50 apportionment of liability, which the Supreme Court rejected as erroneous.

The appellant (KSRTC bus driver) claimed he was driving at moderate speed on the correct side of the road (east to west), while the private bus driver rashly crossed to the wrong side, causing the head-on collision, making the respondent solely negligent with no deduction from compensation. (!) (!)

The Tribunal held it was composite negligence of both drivers (not solely the respondent's fault), assuming equal 50% responsibility each without separately assessing degrees, deducting 50% from the compensation award. (!) (!) (!)

The Supreme Court clarified that "composite negligence" applies to third-party claims against multiple wrongdoers (joint/several liability, no need to apportion), but here—where one driver claims against the other—it was a case of "contributory negligence" requiring assessment of the claimant's (appellant's) partial fault. The Tribunal erred by equating the two and presuming 50:50 without evidence-based apportionment. (!) (!) (!)

On facts, the accident spot (2.26m from southern edge, 4.79m from northern edge of tarred road) indicated the appellant was on his correct side but partly at fault for not slowing down or swerving upon seeing the oncoming private bus partly on the wrong side. The Court apportioned 25% contributory negligence to the appellant and 75% to the respondent. (!)