The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of composite negligence, making both drivers jointly and severally liable for compensation in a motor accident case.

Headnote:
Negligence - Motor Accident - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Composite negligence - Joint and several liability - Apportionment of liability - Compensation
Fact of the Case:

The claimants were injured in a collision between two buses and sought compensation for their injuries and loss of earning capacity. The tribunal found actionable negligence on the part of both drivers and awarded compensation. The appeals challenged the finding of actionable negligence and the quantum of compensation.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the accident was the result of composite negligence on the part of both drivers, making them jointly and severally liable for compensation. The court also reduced the compensation amounts awarded by the tribunal.
Issues: (1) Whether the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles by the respective drivers? (2) If so, whether the quantums of compensation awarded in the two cases are just and proper? (3) Whether the Tribunal was justified in apportioning the liability of payment of compensation in the proportion of 40:60?
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the accident was the result of composite negligence, making both drivers jointly and severally liable for compensation. It also assessed the quantum of compensation based on the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and reduced the amounts awarded by the tribunal.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeals, reducing the compensation amounts awarded by the tribunal and directing the owners and insurers of the vehicles to pay the revised amounts with interest. The liability of the Insurance Company was limited to a specific amount.

VITHAL RAO, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation are directed against the common judgment and awards dated 7-9-1978, passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Kolar, in Miscellaneous Cases (M. V. C.) Nos. 40 and 39 of 1976, on his file, awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 70,000/- to the claimant/injured in Miscellaneous Case (MVC) No. 40 of 1976 and Rupees 57,000/- to the claimant/injured in miscellaneous Case (MVC) No. 39 of 1976.

( 2 ) THE facts, briefly stated, am as follows: At about 4. 00 P. M. on 15-6-1976 the claimants were travelling in the bus bearing Registration No. KLV 5913 belonging to original respondent-1 driven by original respondent-2 along Madras Bangalore road on their way to Bangalore. The bus bearing Registration No. MYK 5699 belonging to the Karnataka State Road Transport corporation (original respondent-4) driven by respondent-5 came from Bangalore lide and there was a collision between the two buses near Kukri Tank near Narasapur village. Consequently, both the claimants sustained injuries to their left hands. The claimants further stated that they were working as Spinners and Winders in the Madura Coats Limited, Tuticorin, and that the claimant in Miscellaneous Case (MVC) No. 39 of 1976 was getting a salary of Rs. 440/- per month and the claimant in Miscellaneous Case (MVC) No. 40,of 1976, was getting a salary of rs. 475/- per month. The claimant in M. C. (MVC) No. 39 of 1976, claimed compensation of rupees 1,00,000/- for the loss of his left hand and for the loss of his earning capacity. So also, the claimant in M. C. (MVC) No. 40 of 1976 claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the loss of his left hand and for the loss of his earning capacity.

( 3 ) THE original respondents, by filing their objections, denied their individual liability for making the payment of compensation to the claimants, throwing the blame on the other vehicle.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal raised the following common issues in both the cases.

(1) Whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by respondent-2 or respondent-5 or both? (2) Whether the injuries sustained by the petitioners were on account of their negligence in keeping their hands outside the bus at the time of the accident? (3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and, if so, how much and from whom? (4) Whether original respondent-3 is not liable for payment of compensation? (5) What order?

( 5 ) DURING hearing, common evidence was recorded and the claimants examined PWs. 1 to 6 including the claimants in both the cases as PWs. 4 and 5 and they got marked Exhibits P-1 to p-15. The respondents examined 2 witnesses including the driver of the Karnataka State Road transport Corporation as DW 2.

( 6 ) THE Tribunal appreciating the material on record, held that the accident was the result of actionable negligence on the part of the driver of both the vehicles and, consequently, it awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 70,000/- to the claimant in M. C. (MVC) No. 40 of 1976 and Rs. 57,000/- to the claimant in M, C. (MVC) No. 39 of 1976. The Tribunal has apportioned the liability between the bus belonging to the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and the tourist bus in the proportion of 40:60. Aggrieved by the said common judgment and awards, the karnataka State Road Transport corporation has filed these two appeals.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the finding of the Tribunal holding that the accident was the result of the actionable negligence on the part of both the drivers of the vehicles was not justified and, in the alternative, he submitted that the compensation awarded by the tribunal was exhorbitant and excessive. According to him, the apportionment of liability was not correct as there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Karnataka State Road transport Corporation.

( 8 ) THE learned Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document