SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(Kar) 226

Karnataka High Court
United India F., G.Insurance Co.Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
U.E.Prasad - Respondent
Decided On : 09-18-84
M.F.A. : 437 of 1982

Advocates:
A.K.LAKSHMAN, R.NARAYANAN NAIR

In cases of composite negligence, joint and several liability may be upheld, and the extent of liability of the insurance company in the case of a passenger in the motor cab is determined by the Motor Vehicles Act.

Headnote:

Insurance Liability - Motor Cab - The court upheld the joint and several liability of the insurance company for compensation in a case of composite negligence involving an auto and a car. The liability of the insurance company in the case of a passenger in the motor cab was found to extend to Rs. 10,000, as per the Motor Vehicles Act.

Fact of the Case:

The appeal by the Insurer of the Auto is directed against the judgment and award made by the Claims Tribunal Bangalore City, awarding compensation of Rs. 8684 from respondents 1 and 3 to 6 in the petition along with interest and costs.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the joint and several liability of the insurance company for compensation, as the accident was deemed to be the result of composite negligence of both the drivers of the auto and the car. The liability awarded was found to be within the liability of the insurance company.

Issues: Apportionment of liability between the two vehicles and the extent of liability of the insurance company in the case of a passenger in the motor cab.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases of composite negligence, the claimant can proceed against any joint tort-feasor or against all of them as they are jointly and severally liable. The liability of the insurance company in the case of a passenger in the motor cab was found to extend to Rs. 10,000, as per the Motor Vehicles Act.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the insurer was granted the liberty to take action for recovering the contribution from the other respondents who are made liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally.

SABHAHIT, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the Insurer of the Auto is directed against the judgment and award dated First day of June 1978 made by the Claims Tribunal Bangalore City in M. C. No. 67/75 on its file awarding compensation of Rs. 8684/- from respondents 1 and 3 to 6 in the petition along with interest and costs.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that since the Tribunal held that both the drivers of the Auto and car were responsible for causing the accident, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned the liability between the two vehicles. He contended that the Insurance Company of the Auto could not be made liable to pay the entire compensation jointly and severally along with the other respondents. This submission was repealed by the learned Counsel appearing for the claimant. He submitted that the accident was the result of composite negligence and not contributory negligence. The person who was injured was a passenger in the Auto. The evidence of the petitioner shows that both the vehicles were being driven at a very fast speed and that is the cause of the accident. That being so, it is true that the accident was the result of composite negligence of both the drivers of the Auto and of the Car. In the case of composite negligence the claimant can proceed against any joint tort-feasor or against all of them as they are jointly and severally liable. The Tribunal has given joint and several liability, which in our opinion, is just and proper.

( 3 ) THE Auto could be described as Motor cab. A Motor cab is defined under S. 2 (15) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It states : "motor cab means any Motor vehicle constructed at any time or used to carry not more than 6 passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward. " as such the Autorickshaw falls within the category of Motor cab Vide Summitra Autorickshaw Sahakari Sangh Ltd. v. Director of Transport at Bombay, AIR 1967 Born 402 at page 403 and therefore the liability of the Insurance Company in the case of a passenger in the Motor cab would extend to Rs. 10,000. That being so, the liability awarded in this case is within the liability of the Insurance Company.

( 4 ) IN the result, there is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is dismissed. The Insurer however, is at liberty to take action for recovering the contribution from the other respondents who are made liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. Appeal dismissed.

--- *** ---

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top