In Composite Negligence, Claimants Free To Recover Entire Compensation From Any Joint Tortfeasor Without Impleading Other Vehicle: Orissa High Court

"It is no longer res-integra that the claimants are at liberty to proceed against any of the two vehicles since the deceased was neither negligent nor had he contributed to the accident and therefore, the challenge of the insurer to the impugned judgment seeking for sharing the liability on both the vehicles appears to be not in consonance with the law and is liable to be rejected, " Orissa High Court

CUTTACK: Emphasizing that the liability of joint tortfeasors in motor accident claims is joint and several, the Orissa High Court bench of Justice G. Satapathy on November 2, 2026, held that a claimant cannot be non-suited or forced into an apportionment of compensation merely because they chose to proceed against only one of the involved vehicles under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The appeal arose out of a fatal accident on January 9, 2017, when an auto-rickshaw carrying the deceased was struck by an offending trolley auto-rickshaw on the Baipariguda-Ramgiri road, leading to the deceased's death and a subsequent charge-sheet against the trolley auto's driver. The 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Koraput at Jeypore, awarded Rs. 10,21,000/- with 7% interest to the legal heirs, directing the appellant-insurer of the trolley auto to satisfy the award first with recovery rights against the owner for lack of a route permit. Aggrieved, the insurer appealed under Section 173 of the Act, urging that the accident was a case of composite negligence requiring equal 50% liability apportionment between both vehicles.

Whether an insurer of an offending vehicle can insist on apportioning 50% liability to another vehicle when the claimants have exercised their prerogative to proceed against only one joint tortfeasor under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

Whether the grant of 7% simple interest per annum on the awarded compensation by the Claims Tribunal warranted reduction on appeal?

Addressing the insurer's plea for shifting half the financial burden, the High Court observed that the issue of composite negligence stands comprehensively settled by the Supreme Court in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., which establishes that apportionment between tortfeasors vis-a-vis the claimant is impermissible.

Claimants possess the absolute right to recover entire damages from any single joint tortfeasor

The bench underscored that in cases involving composite negligence, the injured party or the legal heirs have full freedom to sue either or both joint tortfeasors and recover the full compensation awarded, since the tortfeasors' legal obligations remain joint and several.

"On conscious application of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Khenyei (supra) to the facts of the present case, there appears no escape by the insurer from the liability to satisfy the award for the owner of the trolley Auto and it cannot be denied that the claimants have the option to proceed against any of the two vehicles," the Court observed.

Omission to implead the other vehicle cannot defeat claim or compel inter se apportionment

The Court firmly rejected the appellant's argument that the claimants' failure to proceed against the passenger auto-rickshaw should reduce the insurer's liability, noting that the deceased passenger was entirely blameless and had not contributed to the collision in any manner.

"Merely because the claimants have not proceeded against the Auto rickshaw in which the deceased was coming, it would not ipso facto a ground to reject the claim of the claimants or shift the liability for discharging the obligation on the Auto rickshaw," Justice Satapathy affirmed.

Tribunal's pay and recover direction upheld for breach of policy route permit conditions

On the question of vehicular documentation, the Court noted that the offending vehicle operated without a valid route permit, justifying the Tribunal's decision to order pay and recover in accordance with standard statutory protections afforded to third parties.

The bench remarked that "the insurer is contractually liable to indemnify the insured" towards third parties initially, and sustained the direction permitting the insurer to independently recover the amount from the insured owner by establishing the breach of policy conditions in separate proceedings.

Discretionary reduction of interest rate from seven percent to six percent per annum

Evaluating the component of interest levied by the Claims Tribunal, the Court found merit in the insurer's submission that 7% simple interest per annum was excessive under the prevailing economic standards.

With the claimants not seriously contesting the reduction, the bench modified the award, holding that "interest of justice would be best served, if the interest as imposed on the compensation amount is reduced by one unit" to 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until actual realization.

The High Court dismissed the insurer's challenge on liability and affirmed the compensation quantum of Rs. 10,21,000/-, modifying only the rate of interest to 6% per annum payable within eight weeks, subject to the insurer's right of recovery against the vehicle owner.

Date of Decision: November 2, 2026