Holding

When the claimant is partly at fault, liability must be assessed on the basis of contributory negligence, not composite negligence, fixing the appellant’s fault at 25% and the respondent’s at 75%, and adjusting the compensation accordingly.

Summary

The appellant, a KSRTC bus driver, was injured in a head‑on collision with a private bus and claimed compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that both drivers were jointly negligent and apportioned liability 50:50, reducing the award accordingly. The High Court affirmed the negligence finding but increased the quantum of damages, still applying a 50% reduction for the appellant's negligence. The Supreme Court clarified that when the claimant is himself negligent, the doctrine of composite negligence does not apply; instead, contributory negligence must be assessed, fixing the appellant’s share of fault at 25% and the respondent’s at 75%. Consequently, the Court reduced the compensation by only 25%, ordered an additional payment of Rs.39,575 with 9% interest, and awarded costs. The Court also held that the High Court’s quantum of damages was reasonable and required no further increase.

Issues considered

Whether the principle of composite negligence applies when the claimant is also negligent.
How to determine the appropriate percentage of liability for each party in a motor accident involving contributory negligence.
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court is reasonable and should be altered.
Whether additional compensation with interest is payable to the appellant.

Subjects

motor accidentcontributory negligencecomposite negligencepercentage liabilitycompensation quantuminterest on damagescosts

Judgment

[2008] 2 S.C.R. 291.

T.O. ANTONY A
v.
KARVARNAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 1, 2008
B
(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.)

Motor Accident Claim:
Contributory Negligence and Composite Negligence - ,
Meaning of and distinction between ....: Explained - Whefe ' C
injured is himself partly liable, principle of 'composite
negligence' will not apply nor can there be an automatic
inference that the negligence was 50:50, as was wrongly
assumed in instant case - On facts, claimant being partly
responsible for accident, responsibility at 25% is fixed on him D
and 75% on respondent - Special damages fixed by High
Court not interfered with - However, quantum of compensation
;.- . arrived at by High Court, being reasonable, does not call for
any increase - Extent of contributory negligence on part of
claimant being only 25% and not 50%, compensation reduced E
only to 25% and not 50% - Claimant would be entitled to
additional compensation accordingly with 9% interest from
date of petition till date of realization.
Words and Phrases:
'Contributory negligence' and 'composite negligence' - F
Meaning of in the context of motor accident claim - Explained.
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1082
of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 03.03.2005 of G
the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in MFA No. 153411998
Anitha Shenoy and Naveen R. Nath for the Appellant.
Pradyot Kumar Chakravarty for the Respondents.
291 H
4--
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A The Order of the Court was delivered by
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. 1. Leave granted. Heard
learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant was a driver working with the Kerala State
8 Road Transport Corporation. On the date of the accident, he
was driving the KSRTC bus (KL 15/1074) from Palakkad to
Trichur. When his bus was near Kannanoor a private bus (KL ~
9A-3456) driven by the first respondent (belonging to second
respondent, and insured with third respondent) came from the
c . opposite side and there was a head-on collusion. As a res.ult
the appellant sustained injuries including fracture of right femur.
He filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Palakkad claiming Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation. By judg.ment
and award dated 13.5.1998 the Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal
D allowed the claim petition in part. The Tribunal held that the
accident occurred due to the composite negligence of drivers .
of both vehicles and it could not be said that the accident
occurred solely due to the negligence of tbe first respondent.
The Tribunal further held that as the accident occurred due to
E contributory and composite negligence .of the drivers of both
the vehicles, the liabiHty should be fifty-fifty (that is 50% each).
The tribunal determined the compensation as Rs. 78,500/-. In
view of its decision that the appellant was responsible for the
accident, to an extent of 50%, it deducted 50% therefrom for
F appellant's negligence, and awarded Rs.39,250/- to the
appellant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from date
of petition till date of realization, and directed the third
respondent (Insurer) to pay the said amount.
3. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant filed an
G
appeal before the High Court. The High Court by judgment dated
3.3.2005 allowed the appeal in part. The High Court did n~t )
disturb the finding regarding negligence. It however incre~sed
.
the compensation and directed payment of an additional
compensation of Rs.39,900/- to the appellant with interest at
H
I

-j..

T.O. ANTONY v. KARVARNAN & ORS. 293
---<- r.
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
9% P.A. from date of petition till date of payment. Not being A
satisfied with the judgment of the High Court, the appellant has
filed this appeal by way of Special Leave.
4. The appellant contended that at the time of the accident,
he was driving his bus at a moderate speed in a careful manner
and his bus was traveling from East to West on the correct side B
.. )-
of the road. According to him the private bus, being driven by
the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, came from
the opposite side, went to the wrong side of the road and dashed
• against his bus. He contended that The Tribunal and High Court
ought to have held that the first respondent was solely responsible .C
for the accident, and consequently, awarded the compensation
-I without any deduction.
5. The Tribunal assumed that the extent of negligence of
th~ appellant and the first respondent is fifty:fifty because it was
D
a case of composite negligence. The Tribunal, we find, fell into
/
a common error committed by several Tribunals, in proceeding

.
........ ~ .

~
on the assumption that composite negligence and contributory
negligence are the same. In an accident involving two or more
vehicles, where a third party (other than the drivers and/or owners
of the vehicles involved) claims damages for loss or injuries, it E
is said that compensation is payable in respect of the composite
negligence of the drivers of those vehicles. But in respect of
such an accident, if the claim is by one of the drivers himself for
___._ personal injuries, or by the legal heirs of one of the drivers for
loss on account of his death, or by the owner of one of the F
t vehicles in respect of damages to his vehicle, then the issue
that arises is not about the composite negligence. of all the
drivers, but about the contributory negligence of the driver
concerned.
. -~ 6. 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the
G
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
H
'
_)--

294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.
-...-::ii....
\

A 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
B 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
~
-4 ~
of his own negligence, then the negligence of the part of the
injured which contributed to the accident is· referred to as his -~

c contributory negligence. Where the injured 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. •
D 7. Therefore, when two vehicles are involved in an accident,
and one of the drivers claims compensation from the other priver
-~
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 ....
\.,...

E 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
~-
F 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.
The High Court has failed to correct the said error.
G 8. It is not in dispute that the Mahazar Ex. P-2 showed that )-- ~
the accident spot was at a distance of 2.26 meters from the
Southern edge of the tarred road and 4. 79 meters from the
Northern edge of the tarred road. If the appellant was proceeding
from Palakkad to Trichur (from East to West) and the accident
H occurred at a distance of 2.2 meters from the southern edge of
\
.k
-,
~

TO. ANTONY v. KARVARNAN & ORS. 295
--....,..+- [K.G. BALAKRJSHNAN, CJI.]

the road and 4.79 meters from the Northern edge of the road, A
the inference. is that the appellant was on the right side of the
road and the- private bus came partly to the wrong side of the
road. But the fact that there was a head-on collision could not

.,. be ignored. The evidence shows that the appellant was not
diligent, as he neither slowed down the bus nor swerved to his B
left, on seeing the oncoming bus. On the facts and circumstances
we are of the view that the appellant was also partly responsible
for the accident and we fix the responsibility at 25% on the
appellant and 75% on the first respondent.
9. In regard to the quantum we find that the Tribunal c
awarded Rs.15,000 for medical expenses, Rs.1,000 for
attendant's expenses, Rs.5,000 towards loss of earnings,
Rs.1,000 towards transportation, Rs.1,000 towards nourishing
~
-{
food, Rs.500. towards damage to clothing, in all Rs.23,500 as
special damages. It quantified the compensation for pain and D
suffering as Rs.5,000/- and for partial permanent disability and
~'·
consequential loss of future earning capacity as Rs.50,000/-, in
all Rs.55,000/- as general damages. Thus, the Tribunal arrived
at the total compensation as Rs. 78,500 and after deducting 50%
·towards the negligence of the appellant, it awarded Rs.39,250/ E
- to the appellant. The High Court found that the special damages
aggregating to Rs.23,500 did not require interference. But it
increased the compensation under the head of pain and
sufferings to Rs.10,000 (instead of Rs.5,000) and the
compensation under the head of disability and future loss of F
earning to Rs.1,24,800 (instead of Rs.50,000). Thus the High
Court increased the quantum of compensation from Rs.78,500
to Rs.1,58,300. As the increase was Rs. 79,800/-, it awarded
50% of the increased amour:it that is Rs.39,900/- to the appellant.
We find that the quantum of compensation arrived at by the High
~ G
Court, on the facts and circumstances, is reasonable and ,does
not call for any increase.

10. The appellant contended that compensation has not
been awarded to compensate the leave he took for purposes
of treatment. We find that both the Tribunal and the High Court H
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.
.
-f·--
'
A have awarded compensation under the head of loss of earnings
during the period of treatment. In so far as loss of earning during
the period of any future treatment (after the date of claim petition),
it will be covered by the award under the head of compensation
for disability and future earning capacity. Therefore we do not
B find any reason to increase the quantum on that head.
-~
11. As we have found that the extent of contributory .,.
negligence on the part of the appellant is only 25% and not 50%, \
the compensation has to be reduced only by 25% and not 50%.
Therefore, the compensation awardable to the appellant will be
C Rs.1, 18, 725 (that is Rs.1,58,300 less 25% thereof). As the
Tribunal has awarded Rs.39,250 and the High Court has
awarded another Rs.39,900, the appellantwill be entitled to.the
balance of Rs.39,575 as additional compensation.
12. We accordingly allow this appeal in part and hold that
0
the appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.39,575
with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of petition till date of
realisation. It is made clear that the said sum is in addition
-
to what has been awarded by the Tribunal and the High Court.
E Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the
said amount to the appellant, and the third respondent-insurer
is directed to pay the same. Appellant will also be entitled to r
costs of Rs.2,000/-. ·
R.P. Appeal partly allowed. ·
F

•\