Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Against the claim, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of `65,580/- as compensation attributing negligence against the driver of the lorry and the rider of the scooter in the ratio 1:1.

4. In this appeal, the appellant is mainly challenging the adequacy of compensation awarded. In addition to that the appellant has taken a contention that the accident was due to the composite negligence of the driver of the lorry as well as the rider of the scooter and the appellant being a pillion rider, is only a third party and he be permitted to realise the compensation from the insurer of any one of the vehicles as the liability of driver, owner and insurer of both the vehicles are joint and several.

13. The first decision relied on is Anthony v Karvarnan (2008 (3) KLT 431(SC) where the Apex Court had made a clear distinction between composite negligence and contributory negligence as under.

"Composite negligence" refers to the negligence on the part of the two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of the 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. 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 on the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence."

14. The next decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant is Sally Joseph v Jose V.Jose (2002 (1) KLT 573). There, this Court observed, "Composite negligence is not a term defined or explained. It should ordinarily mean that both acts of negligence operate at the same time so as to form one transaction, which gets so mixed up that it is not possible to separate the same in order to find out the whole fault in question. Principles of composite negligence are, when more than one person are responsible in the commission of the wrong, that the person wronged has a choice of proceeding against all or anyone or more than one of the wrongdoers.

Every wrongdoer is liable for the whole damage if it is not otherwise made out. Primary distinction between 'contributory negligence' and 'composite negligence' is that in the former an act or omission on the part of the injured or deceased is involved, which has materially contributed to the damage. In the latter, a person is injured or his death occurs without any negligence on his part, but as a result of the combined effect of the negligence of two or more other persons."