Mohinder Singh Sohal And Anr. vs Ramesh Kumar And Ors. on 10 October, 1980
2. In my view, the Tribunal was in error in applying the
FAO No.2493 of 1996 -2-
principle of contributory negligence in a case where the deceased
himself had not contributed to the accident. He was merely a pillion
rider and therefore, it was a composite negligence, if it ever existed
between the driver of the scooter and the driver of the truck. In a
case of composite negligence it is perfectly tenable for a claimant to
institute a case against any one of tort feasors and recover the whole
amount against one of the tort feasors. This is to state that there
could be no abatement of claim for compensation in a case of
composite negligence. Even in the finding that there had been a
negligence on the part of the driver of the scooter cannot be inferred
by the only fact that the driver did not have a valid driving licence.
There is no such presumption in law that a person that did not have a
driving licence should always be taken to have contributed to the
accident or caused the accident. This is invariably a question of fact
that has to be established at the time of trial. It has been held by our
Court in Mohinder Singh Sohal Vs. Ramesh Kumar AIR 1981 P&H 199
that the fact that a person did not have a licence could create no
presumption that the person was negligent in his driving.