Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.L. Dattu, CJI., S.A. Bobde, Arun Mishra, JJ.
Khenyei – Appellant
Vs.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4244 OF 2015 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14015/2010] with CA No.4245/2015 @ SLP [C] No.14699/2010; CA No.4246/2015 @ SLP [C] No.14700/2010; CA No.4247/2015 @ SLP [C] No.14701/2010; CA No.4248/2015 @ SLP [C] No.14743/2010; CA No.4249/2015 @ SLP [C] No.14847/2010; and CA No.4250/2015 @ SLP [C] No.14865/2010
Decided on: 07-05-2015
ILR (1939) Mad. 306; AIR 2004 Kar. 149; ILR (1999) Kar. 403; 1982 ACJ (Supp.) 414 (Guj.); 2005 (1) MPLJ 372 – Cited with approval
1962 (1) QB 33; 1970 A.C. 467; [2003] EWHC 2450 (QB); 1996 (2) All E.R. 836 – Referred
(b) Law of torts – Composite negligence – When accident occurs and resulting injuries and damages flow without any negligence on the part of the claimant but as a result of the negligence on the part of two or more persons, it is a case of composite negligence – In such a case, Tribunal should pass a composite decree against owners of both vehicles – Every wrong doer is liable for whole damages in the case of composite negligence. (Para 9)
1991 (1) ACC 226; 1989 2 ACC 483 : 1989 ACJ 472; 1989 2 ACC 116 (Del.) : 1989 ACJ 1118 – Relied upon
AIR 1985 Kar. 160; AIR 1984 Mad. 358; AIR 1983 All. 409 – Cited with approval
(c) Law of torts – Contributory and composite negligence – In contributory negligence victims’ negligence also contributes to occurrence of accident – Victim cannot claim compensation to the extent to his own contribution – In composite negligence it is negligence of persons other than the victims which is responsible for the accident – Such joint tort feasors are liable to pay compensation to the victims jointly and severely. (Para 15, 16)
(2008) 3 SCC 748; (2014) 3 SCC 590; (2008) 13 SCC 198 – Relied upon
(2008) 6 SCC 767 – Referred
(d) Law of Torts – Composite negligence – Remedy to tort feasor before the court when other tort feasors are not impleaded – Court cannot apportion the compensation in absence of other tort feasrors – The impleaded tort feasor may sue other tort feasors for determination of their share and recovery of the same – When, however, all tort feasors are present before the court, court can determine share of each tort feasor and the one who pays the full compensation can recover the share of other tort feasors by excuting proceedings. (Para 16, 17, 18)
(2004) 8 SCC 517; (2004) 13 SCC 224 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The main question which arises for consideration in these appeals is, whether it is open to a claimant to recover entire compensation from one of the joint tort feasors, particularly when in accident caused by composite negligence of drivers of trailor-truck and bus has been found to 2/3rd and 1/3rd extent respectively.
In the instant cases the injuries were sustained by the claimants when two vehicles – bus and trailor-truck collided with each other. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is admittedly the insurer of the bus. However, on the basis of additional evidence adduced the High Court has come to the conclusion that the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is not the insurer of the trailor-truck, hence is not liable to satisfy 2/3rd of the award.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Key Points: - In composite negligence, the claimant's liability is joint and several, allowing recovery of entire compensation from any joint tort feasor, regardless of negligence extent (!) (!) (!) . - Apportionment of compensation between joint tort feasors vis-à-vis the claimant is not permissible; claimant can recover full amount from the solvent/easiest target (!) (!) . - Courts may determine inter se negligence extent only if all joint tort feasors are impleaded, for adjusting liabilities between them via execution proceedings (!) (!) . - Composite negligence differs from contributory negligence; in composite cases, victim's negligence is absent, and tort feasors bear full joint liability (!) (!) . - If other joint tort feasors are not impleaded, court cannot apportion liability; impleaded tort feasor can sue others separately post-award (!) (!) . - Supreme Court allowed appeals, set aside High Court order limiting insurer's liability, holding insurer must pay full compensation despite not insuring the more negligent vehicle (!) (!) . - Claimant entitled to sue owners, drivers, insurers of one or both vehicles; no necessity to implead all (!) . - Paying tort feasor can recover share from other via execution court if inter se negligence determined (!) (!) (!) .
Judgment
Arun Mishra, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In the appeals, the main question which arises for consideration is, whether it is open to a claimant to recover entire compensation from one of the joint tort feasors, particularly when in accident caused by composite negligence of drivers of trailor-truck and bus has been found to 2/3rd and 1/3rd extent respectively.
3. In the instant cases the injuries were sustained by the claimants when two vehicles – bus and trailor-truck collided with each other. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is admittedly the insurer of the bus. However, on the basis of additional evidence adduced the High Court has come to the conclusion that the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is not the insurer of the trailor-truck, hence is not liable to satisfy 2/3rd of the award.
4. It is a case of composite negligence where injuries have been caused to the claimants by combined wrongful act of joint tort feasors. In a case of accident caused by negligence of joint tort feasors, all the persons who aid or counsel or direct or join in committal of a wrongful act, are liable. In such case, the liability is always joint and several. The extent of negligence of joint tort feasors in such a case is immaterial for satisfaction of the claim of the plaintiff/claimant and need not be determined by the court. However, in case all the joint tort feasors are before the court, it may determine the extent of their liability for the purpose of adjusting inter-se equities between them at appropriate stage. The liability of each and every joint tort feasor vis-a-vis to plaintiff/claimant cannot be bifurcated as it is joint and several liability. In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between tort feasors for making payment to the plaintiff is not permissible as the plaintiff/claimant has the right to recover the entire amount from the easiest targets/solvent defendant.
5. In Law of Torts, 2nd Edn., 1992 by Justice G.P. Singh, it has been observed that in composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tort feasors is not permissible.
6. In Law of Torts by Winfield and Jolowicz, 17th Edn., 2006, the author has referred to Performance Cars Ltd. v. Abraham [1962 (1) QB 33], Baker v. Willoughby 1970 A.C. 467, Rogers on Unification of Tort Law: Multiple Tortfeasors; G.N.E.R. v. Hart [2003] EWHC 2450 (QB), Mortgage Express Ltd. v. Bowerman & Partners 1996 (2) All E.R. 836 etc. and observed thus :
“WHERE two or more people by their independent breaches of duty to the claimant cause him to suffer distinct injuries, no special rules are required, for each tortfeasor is liable for the damage which he caused and only for that damage. Where, however, two or more breaches of duty by different persons cause the claimant to suffer a single, indivisible injury the position is more complicated. The law in such a case is that the claimant is entitled to sue all or any of them for the full amount of his loss, and each is said to be jointly and severally liable for it. If the claimant sues defendant A but not B and C, it is open to A to seek “contribution” from B and C in respect of their relative responsibility but this is a matter among A, B and C and does not affect the claimant. This means that special rules are necessary to deal with the possibilities of successive actions in respect of that loss and of claims for contribution or indemnity by one tortfeasor against the others. It may be greatly to the claimant’s advantage to show that he has suffered the same, indivisible harm at the hands of a number of defendants for he thereby avoids the risk, inherent in cases where there are different injuries, of finding that one defendant is insolvent (or uninsured) and being unable to execute judgment against him. Even where all participants are solvent, a system which enabled the claimant to sue each one only for a proportionate part of the damage would require him to launch multiple proceedings, some of which might invol
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
