1. The appellant while driving a motor bike, was hit by a car driven by the 1st respondent. The appellant admittedly did not have a driving license. The appellant approached the Tribunal with a claim for compensation for the injuries suffered and the disability occasioned. In fact, the appellant is said to be in a vegetative state, consequent to the accident. The disability certificate of the Medical Board produced as Exhibit X1 also shows 100% disability. The Tribunal found 50% negligence on the claimants part for reason of having no valid driving licence to drive a motor bike. The appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation and deletion of contributory negligence. On the question of contributory negligence, the appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar Rana vs. Surinder Singh, 2008 (3) KLT 322 (SC).

2. Sudhir Kumar Rana, a minor, while driving a two-wheeler, met with an accident with a mini truck driven rashly and negligently by its driver. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found so with respect to the contributory negligence:

“7. The question is, negligence for what? If the complainant must be guilty of an act or omission which materially contributed to the accident and resulted in injury and damage, the concept of contributory negligence would apply - New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Avinash, 1988 ACJ 322 (Raj).

In T.O. Anthony vs. Karvarnan and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 748, it was held:

“6. Composite negligence refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong-doer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence of the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence.

7. Therefore, when two vehicles are involved in an accident, and one of the drivers claims compensation from the other driver alleging negligence and the other driver denies negligence or claims that the injured claimant himself was negligent, then it becomes necessary to consider whether the injured claimant was negligent and if so, whether he was solely or partly responsible for the accident and the extent of his responsibility, that is his contributory negligence. Therefore where the injured is himself partly liable, the principle of 'composite negligence; will not apply nor can there be an automatic inference that the negligence was 50:50 as has been assumed in this case. The Tribunal ought to have examined the extent of contributory negligence of the appellant and thereby avoided confusion between composite negligence and contributory negligence. The High Court has failed to correct the said error.

8. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini-truck which was being driven rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence