2014 (1) TMI 1940 - SC - Indian Laws

Principle of contributory negligence - composite negligence - though the claim for compensation has been upheld, the liability to pay the same has been apportioned between the drivers/owners of the two vehicles involved in the motor accident. Appellants contend that as they were third parties to the claim, the High Court ought to have made the drivers/owners of the vehicles jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. HELD THAT - Where the Plaintiff/claimant himself is found to be a party to the negligence the question of joint and several liability cannot arise and the Plaintiff's claim to the extent of his own negligence, as may be quantified, will have to be severed. In such a situation the Plaintiff can only be held entitled to such part of damages/compensation that is not attributable to his own negligence. In the present case, neither the driver/owner nor the insurer has filed any appeal or cross objection against the findings of the High Court that both the vehicles were responsible for the accident. In the absence of any challenge to the aforesaid part of the order of the High Court, we ought to proceed in the matter by accepting the said finding of the High Court. From the discussions that have preceded, it is clear that the High Court was not correct in apportioning the liability for the accident between drivers/owners of the two vehicles. The drivers/owners of both the vehicles are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and it is open to the claimants to enforce the award against both or any of them. The order of the High Court dated 05.07.2006 is modified - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Apportionment of liability in a motor accident compensation case under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issue of Liability Apportionment:
The Appellants contested the High Court's decision to apportion liability between the drivers/owners of two vehicles involved in a motor accident, claiming that as third parties, the drivers/owners should be jointly and severally liable due to composite negligence rather than the principle of contributory negligence. The Appellants relied on legal precedents to support their argument, emphasizing that contributory negligence should only apply when the claimant is directly involved in the accident as a driver or owner of a vehicle.

2. Factual Background and Tribunal's Decision:
The accident involved a jeep and a truck resulting in fatalities and injuries. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal initially held the truck solely responsible due to the absence of the truck's driver/owner or insurer for compensation claims. However, the High Court later determined both vehicles shared responsibility, apportioning 70% liability to the truck and 30% to the jeep's driver/owner. Specific compensation amounts were allocated for each victim based on this apportionment.

3. Legal Principles and Arguments:
The distinction between composite and contributory negligence was highlighted, emphasizing that joint and several liability applies when multiple parties cause a single injury. Legal counsel for the Appellants argued against the High Court's application of contributory negligence, citing established legal principles that support joint liability for third-party claimants in accidents involving multiple vehicles.

4. Court's Decision and Rationale:
The Supreme Court, after reviewing the arguments and legal principles, concluded that the High Court erred in apportioning liability between the drivers/owners of the vehicles. The Court held that both drivers/owners are jointly and severally liable for compensation, allowing the claimants to pursue the award against either or both parties. The Court modified the High Court's order accordingly, emphasizing the need to enforce joint liability in such cases.

In summary, the Supreme Court's judgment clarified the application of liability apportionment in motor accident compensation cases, emphasizing joint and several liability for drivers/owners involved in accidents where third-party claimants seek compensation. The Court's decision aimed to uphold established legal principles and ensure fair compensation for victims of motor accidents.