RESEARCH PROJECT

On
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT VS. ARUN alias ARAVIND
Submitted to

MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

AURANGABAD

Submitted by
SAKSHI SINGH
B.B.A.L.L.B (Hons.) Semester – I
Roll no. 2023/BBALLB/49
LAW OF TORTS, MV ACT AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Under the guidance of

Mr. Vivek Wilson and Ms. Suwarta Raut
Professor of Law of Tort, MV Act and Consumer Protection
Maharashtra National Law University Aurangabad
Declaration

This declaration is made at Aurangabad that this project is prepared and drafted by me Sakshi Singh.

It contains the project work s that was assigned to me during my 1 st Semester period and succesfully
accomplished from my side.

This project is a sincere attempt at compilation of the aforementioned work.

This has not been submitted wither in whole or in part to any other law university or affiliated institute under
which any university is recognized by the Bar council of India, for the award of any other law degree of
diploma within the territory of India.
 Table of Contents

Sr. No Title Sr. No

1. Introduction 1-6
2. Facts of the Case 7
3. Issues raised 8
4. Rule of Law 9-10
5. Analysis of the case 11
6. Arguments put forth 12
7. Holding of the Case 13
8. Precedents 14-16
9. Conclusion 17
10. References 18
 Abstract

Contributory negligence is a legal doctrine that can affect personal injury cases and the determination of
liability. It refers to a situation in which the injured party (the plaintiff) is found to have contributed, even in
a small way, to their own injury or damages through their own negligent actions or behaviour. In cases
where contributory negligence is recognized, it can impact the plaintiff's ability to recover damages from the
defendant. The case in question, KSRTC vs. Arun alias Aravind, is based on the concept of contributory
negligence. The main legal issue raised was whether the claimants can be held liable for contributory
negligence of one of the joint tort-feasors if they fail to implead them as one of the opponents in their claim
petition.
Introduction
Contributory negligence is a legal concept that pertains to personal injury cases and is used to determine
the extent of responsibility or fault of each party involved. It is most commonly applied in common law
systems, including many jurisdictions in the United States.
In a contributory negligence system, if a person (the plaintiff) suffers harm or injury due to the actions or
negligence of another party (the defendant), the court will assess whether the plaintiff's own negligence
contributed to the harm. If the plaintiff's actions are found to have contributed to the injury in any way,
even if their negligence was only a small part of the overall cause, the plaintiff may be completely barred
from recovering any compensation from the defendant. This is often referred to as the "all-or-nothing"
rule.

Significance of the study

This study is an insight into the case Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Arun alias
Aravind. The project studies the significance of contributory negligence. It also throws light on the
concept of joint and several tort-feasors.

Objectives of the study

This study aims to determine the study the role of contributory negligence and joint and several liability
of tort-feasors. It explores the Indian judicial system and its take on the concept of several parties getting
petitioned and being held liable to pay damages to the plaintiff. This project also throws light on the
Motor Vehicles Act.

Research methodology
The research methodology is the specific procedure and techniques used to identify and after information
about a particular research topic. This research work is DOCTRINAL because it mainly focuses on
Journals, Articles, Books and Research Papers.

1|Page
Contributory Negligence
Contributory negligence is a legal doctrine that can come into play in personal injury cases, particularly
in common law systems like the United States. It refers to a situation in which the injured party (the
plaintiff) is found to have contributed to their own injuries or damages through their own negligent
actions or failure to exercise reasonable care. In cases where contributory negligence is applicable, it can
impact the plaintiff's ability to recover compensation for their injuries.
Here are some key points to understand about contributory negligence:

1. Comparative Negligence vs. Contributory Negligence: Many jurisdictions have replaced

contributory negligence with a more modern concept called "comparative negligence." In
contributory negligence systems, if the plaintiff is found even slightly at fault for their injuries, they
are barred from recovering any damages. In contrast, comparative negligence allows the plaintiff to
recover damages proportionate to their level of fault, even if they are partially responsible for the
accident.

2. Pure Comparative Negligence: In some states that use comparative negligence, it is applied in a
"pure" form. This means that even if the plaintiff is mostly at fault (e.g., 90% at fault), they can still
recover damages, but the amount they receive is reduced by their degree of fault. For example, if
they were awarded $10,000 in damages but were 90% at fault, they would receive only $1,000.

3. Modified Comparative Negligence: Other states have adopted a "modified" form of comparative
negligence, which has a threshold beyond which the plaintiff cannot recover any damages. Typically,
this threshold is set at 50% or 51%. If the plaintiff's level of fault exceeds this threshold, they cannot
recover any damages. If it is below the threshold, their damages are reduced by their degree of fault.

4. Defences: In cases involving contributory negligence, defendants often use it as a defence to avoid
liability or reduce their liability. They argue that the plaintiff's own negligence played a significant
role in causing the accident or injuries.

5. Burden of Proof: The burden of proof typically falls on the defendant to establish that the plaintiff
was contributorily negligent. They must demonstrate that the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable
care, and this failure was a substantial factor in causing the injuries.

2|Page
6. Jury Determination: In many cases, the question of contributory negligence is left to the jury to
decide based on the evidence presented during the trial. The jury determines the degree of fault
assigned to both the plaintiff and the defendant.

3|Page
Composite Negligence
Composite negligence, also known as combined negligence or concurrent negligence, is a legal concept
in tort law that arises when more than one party's negligent actions contribute to causing harm or injury
to another person or entity. In cases of composite negligence, multiple individuals or entities share
responsibility for the harm suffered by the injured party. This concept is particularly relevant in cases
where determining the extent of each party's contribution to the harm is complex.
Here's a breakdown of the key elements of composite negligence:

1. Negligence: Negligence refers to the failure to exercise the level of care and caution that a reasonable
person or entity would under similar circumstances. To establish a case of composite negligence, it
must first be proven that each party accused of negligence acted negligently.

2. Causation: It must be demonstrated that the negligent actions of each party contributed to the harm
or injury suffered by the plaintiff (the injured party). This can be a challenging aspect of composite
negligence cases, as it may involve determining the degree of each party's contribution to the harm.

3. Apportionment of Liability: In cases of composite negligence, the court may determine the
proportion of fault or liability that each negligent party bears for the harm. This apportionment of
liability helps establish the extent to which each party is responsible for compensating the injured
party.

4. Joint and Several Liability: In some jurisdictions, when multiple parties are found to be
concurrently negligent, they may be held jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of
damages owed to the injured party. This means that the injured party can seek full compensation
from any one of the negligent parties, and it is up to the parties to sort out their respective proportions
of liability among themselves.

Composite negligence cases can involve complex legal and factual issues, as determining the extent of
each party's contribution to the harm can be challenging. It's important for both plaintiffs seeking
compensation and defendants defending against claims of negligence to understand the principles of
composite negligence and how they apply in their specific jurisdiction.

4|Page
Joint & Several Tort-feasors
Joint and several tortfeasors are parties who are found jointly liable for a tort (a civil wrong that causes
harm to another person or entity). In cases involving joint and several liability, the injured party
(plaintiff) can choose to seek full compensation from any or all of the tortfeasors, regardless of each
party's individual degree of fault. This legal principle is often applied to ensure that the injured party can
recover the full amount of damages awarded, even if one or more of the tortfeasors are unable to pay
their share.
Key points about joint and several tortfeasors include:
1. Joint Liability: Joint liability means that multiple parties acted together in committing a tort or were
so closely connected that their actions are considered a single, joint act of negligence. In cases of
joint liability, each tortfeasor is collectively responsible for the full amount of damages awarded.

2. Several Liability: Several liability, on the other hand, means that each tortfeasor is individually
responsible for their share of the damages, based on their degree of fault or responsibility. In this
scenario, the plaintiff must sue each tortfeasor separately to recover their respective portions of the
damages.

3. Joint and Several Liability: Some jurisdictions allow for joint and several liability, which combines
the principles of joint and several liability. Under this system, if multiple tortfeasors are found liable,
the plaintiff has the option to choose whether to seek full compensation from one tortfeasor or
distribute the responsibility among them. If one tortfeasor pays the full amount, they can seek
contribution from the other tortfeasors to recover their respective shares.

4. Practical Considerations: Joint and several liability can be advantageous for plaintiffs because it
ensures that they can recover full compensation even if some of the tortfeasors cannot pay their share
of damages. It is then up to the tortfeasors to sort out their relative degrees of fault and contribution
among themselves.

5. Exceptions and Variations: The rules regarding joint and several liability can vary by jurisdiction,
and there may be exceptions or limitations, especially in cases involving certain types of torts (e.g.,
strict liability). Some jurisdictions have modified or abolished joint and several liability in favour of
pure several liability, while others retain joint and several liability for specific types of cases.

5|Page
Motor Vehicles Act

The Motor Vehicles Act states all regulations associated with road transport vehicles as fixed by the
Parliament of India. It includes provisions with regards to the motor vehicles’ registration, drivers’
licencing, traffic regulations, violations, penalties, insurance, liabilities, etc.
The Indian Motor Vehicles Act was first passed in 1988. However, in 2017 the Government of India
presented the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill after consulting with the state transport ministers. This
bill was passed in July 2019 and came into force on September 1, 2019.
here are some key provisions and aspects covered by the Motor Vehicles Act in India:
1. Licensing of Drivers: The Act outlines the procedures and requirements for obtaining and renewing
driver's licenses for various categories of vehicles. It also sets the minimum age for obtaining a
driver's license.
2. Vehicle Registration: It mandates the registration of motor vehicles and provides guidelines for
obtaining registration certificates and number plates.
3. Traffic Rules and Regulations: The Act defines various traffic rules and regulations, including rules
related to speed limits, overtaking, lane discipline, and more.
4. Penalties and Offenses: It specifies fines and penalties for traffic violations, such as overspeeding,
driving under the influence of alcohol, and not wearing a helmet or seatbelt.
5. Insurance: The Act makes it compulsory for vehicle owners to have third-party insurance coverage.
6. Motor Vehicle Taxation: It provides a framework for the taxation of motor vehicles, including road
tax and other levies.
7. Vehicle Standards: The Act outlines safety and emission standards that vehicles must adhere to
before being allowed on the road. It also covers issues related to vehicle recalls.
8. Accident Claims and Compensation: The Act establishes a framework for accident claims and
compensation for victims of road accidents.
9. Transportation of Goods and Passengers: It regulates the transportation of goods and passengers
by road, including rules for commercial vehicles like buses and trucks.
10. Regulation of Transport Services: The Act deals with permits for various types of public transport
services, including contract carriages, stage carriages, and more.
11. Traffic Enforcement: The Act empowers traffic police and authorities to enforce road safety rules
and regulations, including the issuance of fines and penalties.
12. National Road Safety Council: It establishes a National Road Safety Council to advise the central
and state governments on road safety matters.

6|Page
Facts of the case
In a motor accident that occurred on 15-4-1993 at 21:30 hours on Bagalkot to Guddankeri Road, due to
collision of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, bus bearing No. MEF/8529 and lorry coming
in opposite direction, Arun alias Aravind, aged 31 years, who was travelling as a passenger in the bus,
sustained grievous injuries to his right hand and right elbow leading to amputation of right hand above
the elbow on 17-4-1993. The injured filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short, the 'Act'), before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bijapur (M.V.C. No, 603 of 1993),
seeking compensation of Rs. 8,15,000/- from the respondents-the driver of bus and Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation, being owner and insurer. The driver, owner and insurer of lorry were not
impleaded as the driver drove away the lorry without stopping after the accident and particulars of driver,
owner and insurer could not be ascertained. The respondents resisted the claim petition by contending
that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry and not due to rash and
negligent driving of the bus and since driver, owner and insurer of the lorry are not impleaded in the
petition, the petition is not maintainable and even otherwise, quantum of compensation claimed is
excessive. The Tribunal after enquiry, by its judgment and award dated 31-3-1997, held that the accident
did not occur due to any negligence of the petitioner and occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the drivers of bus and lorry and they were equally blameworthy to the extent of 50% each and further
held that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from
the date of petition to the date of payment and since driver, owner and insurer of lorry were not parties to
the petition, passed award for Rs. 90,000/- against the respondents. The respondents in the claim petition
being aggrieved by the said award, filed M.F.A. No. 4552 of 1997 contending that the accident had
occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry and the quantum of compensation
awarded is also excessive. The claimant has preferred Cross-appeal No. 11 of 1998 contending that
compensation awarded to the claimant could not be reduced for non-impleading of driver, owner and
insurer of lorry and quantum of compensation awarded is inadequate and since it is a case of composite
negligence, the claimant is entitled to recover full amount of compensation to which he is entitled and he
is entitled to recover compensation from either of the joint tort-feasors.

7|Page
Issues raised in the case

When these appeals along with connected appeals were posted for hearing, the Division Bench referred the
matter on 18-7-2003 as it felt that the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ganesh v. Syed Munned Ahatned
and Ors., ILR 1999 Kar. 403 (FB), did not consider the following questions. --
"1. If the proceedings are finally determined with an award made by the Tribunal and disposed of in some
cases by the appeal against the same by the High Court, does the Tribunal not become funclus officio for
making any further proceedings like impleading the tort-feasor or initiating action against him legally
impermissible?
2. What is the remedy of a tort-feasor who has satisfied the award, but who does not know the particulars of
the vehicle which was responsible for the accident?"
In the instant case, the particulars, of lorry that was partly responsible for the accident causing injuries are
known neither to the appellant-Corporation nor to the injured-claimant and hence, the Division Bench
referred the question for consideration whether in the case of an accident arising out of composite negligence
causing death or physical injury to the third party, the amount determined by the Tribunal can be recovered
from any one of the joint tort-feasors; If so, whether the tort-feasor who satisfies the award has any remedy
in law against the other tort-feasor and whether such remedy becomes extinct if the other tort-feasor is
unknown. Accordingly, as stated these appeals are before this Bench.

In conclusion the issues raised in the case were-

i. Apportionment of liability to pay compensation- where the claimant had filed claim petition against
one joint impleading the other joint tort-feasor as name of the tort-feasor was not known.
ii. Whether the claimants can be held liable for contributory negligence of one of the joint tort-feasors if
they fail to implead them as one of the opponents in their claim petition.

8|Page
Rule of Law
According to Winfield and Jolowicz, “Negligence is the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in
damaged, undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff”.

Essentials of Negligence

In an action for Negligence, the plaintiff has to prove the following essentials –

1. Defendant owned a duty of care towards the plaintiff

2. Defendant made the Breach of that duty

3. Plaintiff suffered damage as the consequences

Defendant owned a duty of care towards the plaintiff – The plaintiff has to establish that the defendant
owned a duty of care of which he has made a breach. But there should a legal duty rather than a mere moral,
religion or social duty.

Breach of Duty – Breach of duty means non-observance of due care which is required in particular
situation. The plaintiff has to show that there was a breach of duty which means failure to observe expected
standard of care. The degree of care which man is required to use in a particular situation varies with the risk
level.

Damages to the plaintiff – It is also necessary to proof the due to the negligence of defendant, plaintiff
suffered with certain damages. In other words, plaintiff has also to prove that he suffered with damages, thus
caused in the consequences of defendant’s negligence.

Composite Negligence

When the negligence of two or more person results in the same damage, there is said to be a Composite
Negligence and the person responsible for causing such damage are known to be Composite Tortfeasors.
The liability of composite tortfeasors is joint and several. No one can take the plea that his liability should be
limited to the extent of his fault. The judgment against the composite tortfeasors is a single sum in
accordance of the fault of the various tortfeasors and the plaintiff can enforce the whole of his claim either
against any of the defendant (if he so chooses) or against the composite tortfeasors.

9|Page
Contributory Negligence

When the plaintiff by his own want of care contributes to the damage caused by the negligence of the
defendant, he is considered to be guilty of Contributory Negligence.

It acts as good defence for defendant where he can take the plea that he alone was not responsible for the
damages suffered by the plaintiff. Here, defendant has to prove that the plaintiff failed to take the reasonable
care of his own safety and that act as the contributory factor to the harm which was ultimately suffered by
the plaintiff.

10 | P a g e
Analysis of the Case
In the case KSRTC v. Arun alias Aravind, A.I.R. 2004, the defence of composite negligence was taken by
the defendants.

To establish a case of composite negligence, several elements must typically be present:

1. Negligence of Each Party: The first and foremost element is the existence of negligence on the part
of each party accused of contributing to the harm. Negligence is the failure to exercise the level of
care and caution that a reasonable person or entity would under similar circumstances.

2. Causation: It must be demonstrated that the negligent actions of each party contributed to the harm
suffered by the plaintiff (the injured party). This means that the plaintiff must show a direct link
between the negligent actions of the parties and the resulting harm.

3. Concurrent Negligence: Composite negligence arises when multiple parties are negligent at the
same time or within a close timeframe, and their combined actions contribute to the harm. It is the
simultaneous or concurrent nature of their negligence that distinguishes it from cases of simple
negligence.

4. Proportion of Fault: In some cases, it may be necessary to determine the proportion of fault or
liability that each negligent party bears for the harm. This helps establish the extent to which each
party is responsible for compensating the injured party.

5. Injury or Harm: The plaintiff must have suffered actual injury or harm as a result of the combined
negligence of the parties. Without demonstrable harm, there may be no basis for a composite
negligence claim.

6. Apportionment of Liability: Depending on the legal jurisdiction and the circumstances of the case,
the court may apportion liability among the negligent parties. This can be based on their degree of
fault or contribution to the harm.

7. Damages Sought: The plaintiff must specify the damages or compensation being sought as a result
of the harm caused by the combined negligence.

11 | P a g e
Arguments put forth

 Sri D. Kumar, the learned Counsel for Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, submitted that in
view of the provisions of Section 168(1) of the Act, the Tribunal has to specify the amounts which
shall be paid by insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident and where the
accident has occurred due to negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles, liability has to be
apportioned and in the absence of the other joint tort-feasor, liability would be restricted to
blameworthiness found on the part of the respondents impleaded and in the present case, in view of
finding of the Tribunal in M.V.C. No. 603 of 1993 that both drivers were equally blameworthy in
proportion of 50:50, the Tribunal has rightly held that liability of Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation, is only Rs. 90,000/-, being 50% of the amount of compensation as any other view
would work out hardship to the respondents, specially where driver, owner and insurer of the other
offending vehicle are not parties and the respondents would not be left with any remedy against them
and have to satisfy the full award amount though, they are found guilty of blameworthiness to the
extent of 50% only and to that extent, the Full Bench decision in Ganesh's case requires modification.

 The learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, Sri S.V. , reiterated the arguments of the
learned Counsel for Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, and further submitted that the
liability of the respondent has to be apportioned and the Insurance Company cannot be asked to pay
more than the liability having regard to apportionment of blameworthiness and in the absence of
driver, owner and insurer of other joint tort-feasor, owner and Insurance Company cannot be saddled
with full liability as the same would be unjust and inequitable and the respondent on record will not
have any remedy against the other tort-feasor for contribution after disposal of the claim petition.

 The learned Counsel appearing for the claimants, Sri Basavaraj Kareddy and Sri A.K. Bhat,
submitted that the liability of joint tort-feasors is joint and several and the claimant can choose to
proceed against any one of the joint tort-feasors and apportionment of liability among joint tort-
feasors, would not in any way affect the right of the claimant for full compensation and in the
absence of the other joint tort-feasors, no finding can be given regarding apportionment of blame
worthiness and the respondents can exercise their right in independent proceedings.

12 | P a g e
Holdings of the Case

It was held that there was no question of apportionment of compensation. Only joint tort-feasor on record
was bound to pay compensation. It was open to the joint tort-feasor who had satisfied the award to claim
contribution from the other joint tortfeasor to the extent of his blameworthiness.

“It is seen that in an accident case, generally the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation as
per the terms of the policy. But, when the accident is on account of composite negligence of two or more
vehicles, the claimant is entitled to proceed against any of the tort-feasors for full compensation for the
injuries suffered or the death caused, as the liability is joint and several. The question of apportionment
does not arise, if the other joint tort-feasor has not been impleaded as party. However, after ascertaining
and impleading the other joint tort-feasor as a party, the tort-feasor can exercise his right of
contribution in accordance with law. In other words, when the other joint tort-feasor is not a party, the
Tribunal should refrain from giving any finding about apportionment or negligence, in the absence of
other tort-feasor, to avoid any exercise in futility and leave the said question of liability of joint tort-
feasors to be adjudicated, if the joint tort-feasor who satisfies the award is able to find out the name of
the other joint tort-feasor and seeks to exercise right of contribution in accordance with law.”

It was held that the claimants cannot be saddled with the liability for contributory negligence of one of
the joint tort-feasors if they fail to implead them as one of the opponents in their claim petition. The
apportionment of negligence or blameworthiness between two joint tort-feasors would arise only when
both are parties to the petition. However, the only joint tort-feasor who is made a party to the petition and
satisfies the award cannot be said to be without any remedy. It is open to them to claim contribution from
the other joint tort-feasor to the extent of their blameworthiness.

13 | P a g e
 Precedents

 Ganesh v. Syed Munned Ahatned and Ors., ILR 1999 Kar. 403

The Full Bench decision in Ganesh's case does not require any reconsideration. the Full Bench decision of
this Court in Ganesh v. Syed Munned Ahatned and Ors., ILR 1999 Kar. 403 (FB), did not consider the
following questions. -
"1. If the proceedings are finally determined with an award made by the Tribunal and disposed of in some
cases by the appeal against the same by the High Court, does the Tribunal not become funclus officio for
making any further proceedings like impleading the tort-feasor or initiating action against him legally
impermissible?
2. What is the remedy of a tort-feasor who has satisfied the award, but who does not know the particulars of
the vehicle which was responsible for the accident?"
In the instant case, the particulars, of lorry that was partly responsible for the accident causing injuries are
known neither to the appellant-Corporation nor to the injured-claimant and hence, the Division Bench
referred the question for consideration whether in the case of an accident arising out of composite negligence
causing death or physical injury to the third party, the amount determined by the Tribunal can be recovered
from any one of the joint tort-feasors; If so, whether the tort-feasor who satisfies the award has any remedy
in law against the other tort-feasor and whether such remedy becomes extinct if the other tort-feasor is
unknown. Accordingly, as stated these appeals are before this Bench.
 Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Reny Mammen (DB), the Tribunal
Though the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/-, as only Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation, one of the joint tort-feasors is impleaded and driver, owner and insurer of lorry
are not parties, the award has to be reduced to Rs. 90,000/- in view of the finding that blameworthiness
on the part of the driver of the bus was found to be 50% only. The Division Bench decision in Reny
Mammen's case has been overruled by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ganesh's case, by holding
that where accident has occurred due to composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles, their
liability would be joint and several and the claimant can proceed against both or any one of the joint tort-
feasors and recover full compensation to which he is entitled and apportionment of negligence between
joint tort-feasors is for the benefit of the respondents to claim contribution from the other tort-feasor if he
satisfies the award against the claimant and it is open to the tort-feasor, who satisfies the award to
proceed against the other tort-feasor for contribution.
 Union of India v. United India Insurance Corporation Limited and Ors.,

14 | P a g e
Where the accident has occurred due to negligence of the drivers of two vehicles and not due to the
negligence of the claimant, one of the joint tort-feasors cannot plead contributory negligence on the part
of the passengers of the vehicle and qua the passengers of the bus, who were innocent, the driver and
owner of the vehicles would be joint tort-feasors. It is also held that the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal is clearly alternative forum in substitution of Civil Court for adjudicating upon claims for
compensation arising out of the use of the motor vehicles. It is well-settled that the liability of joint tort-
feasors is joint and several and each is responsible, jointly with each and all of the others and also
severally for the whole of the amount of damage caused by the tort, irrespective of the extent of his
participation. The injured may sue any one of them separately for the full amount of loss or he may sue
all of them jointly in the same action and even in the latter case, the judgment so obtained against all of
them may be executed in full against any one of them.
 A. Shivarudrappa v. General Manager, Mysore Road Transport Corporation 1973 ACJ 302 (Kar.)
(DB)
In the said case, as in the present case, a passenger travelling in bus sustained injury due to collision
of bus with a lorry and claim petition was filed against Mysore State Road Transport Corporation
only and driver, owner and insurer of lorry were not impleaded. The Tribunal held that there was no
negligence on the part of the driver of bus and driver and owner of the lorry were not parties to the
petition and hence, the claimant was not entitled to compensation quantified at Rs. 2,000/- in the said
case. In appeal by claimant, a Division Bench of this Court reversed the order of the Tribunal by
holding that accident occurred due to negligent driving of both the vehicles and it was a case of
composite negligence and liability of tort-feasors was joint and several and hence, notwithstanding
non-impleading of driver and owner of lorry, the claimant was entitled to full compensation
quantified by the Tribunal.

 Hiraben Bhaga and Ors. v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 1982 ACJ (Supp.) 414 (Guj.)
(DB)
“The second error which the Tribunal committed is of deducting 50 per cent for the contributory
negligence of the jeep driver which he assessed at 50 per cent, that is to says to an equal extent. It
passes one's understanding as to how could a passenger's compensation be deducted on account of
the contributory negligence of the driver of a vehicle. It is entirely the choice of the claimants
whether to implead both the joint tort-feasors or either of them. The claimants cannot be saddled
with the liability for contributory negligence of one of the joint tort-feasors, if they fails to implead

15 | P a g e
him as one of the opponents, in their claim petition. It would be for the impleaded joint tort-feasor to
take proceedings to get the other joint tort-feasor impleaded in the claim petition, or for that matter
such an impleaded joint tort-feasor may select to sue the other one after the decree or award is given
and the other joint tort-feasor is held liable therein".

Conclusion
‘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

16 | P a g e
 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.
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.

References

 https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56093af2e4b0149711228411
 https://ackodrive.com/traffic-rules/motor-vehicle-act/?
utm_adgroup=&utm_Sitelink=&utm_device=c&utm_location=149333&msclkid=9f4a352f4de51b0f
17a35021357ffd8a&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=AD_Bing_Search_AllCi
ty_Dynamic&utm_term=ackodrive&utm_content=Dynamic_Ads
 https://www.lawcolumn.in/contributory-negligence-and-composite-negligence/#google_vignette
 https://www.lawweb.in/2015/05/whether-liability-to-pay-compensation.html

17 | P a g e