Deena Nath Verma & another v. Manager, New Ekta Bus Service and others), whereby for the untimely death of

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Ashok Kumar Mehta (deceased) was travelling on 16.12.2017 in Bolero No.RJ-13-TA-0777, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which was proved from the evidence of eye witness Jitendra Kumar Verma PW-2 which collided head on with Bus No.RJ-13-PA-3079. He further submitted that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the Bolero driver and in the criminal case, a charge sheet was also submitted against Bolero driver, but still the tribunal has concluded that there was composite negligence of both the bus and Bolero driver to the extent of 50% each and as such, saddled the appellant-insurance company with 50% liability to pay compensation to the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the charge sheet was filed against the Bolero driver as such, the tribunal erred in concluding that there was a composite negligence on the part of the bus driver also. In support of this 2 FAFO No. 2761 of 2025 contention learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ranjeet & another Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497.

3. I have heard the learned counsel of the appellant insurance company, perused the impugned judgment and documents submitted with the appeal.

4. The Apex Court in the case of Khenyei vs New India Assurance Company Limited & Others (2015) 9 SCC 273, held as under:-

22.1. In the case of composite negligence, the plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several.

22.2. In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tortfeasors vis-à-vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them.

22.3. In case all the joint tortfeasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/Tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tortfeasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of the payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/extent of their negligence has been determined by the court/Tribunal, in the main case one joint tortfeasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings.

22.4. It would not be appropriate for the court/Tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tortfeasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tortfeasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tortfeasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award.

5. The Apex Court in the case of Janabai WD/O Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors. vs. ICICI Lambord Insurance Co.Ltd. (2022) 10 SCC 512, held as under:- 3 FAFO No. 2761 of 2025

11. We find that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of Appellant 1 who suffered injuries in the accident. The application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. We find that the entire approach of the High Court is clearly not sustainable. (emphasis supplied)

6. The claimants have examined Poonam Singh as PW-1 and Jitendra Kumar Verma as PW-2. No oral evidence was adduced by the owner, driver and insurer of Bolero and bus.

7. PW-1 Poonam Singh has very fairly accepted that she was not an eye- witness of the accident. PW-2 Jitendra Kumar Verma has deposed that on

16.12.2017 at about 08.10 AM he alongwith Shribhagwan were travelling on their motorcycle behind the Bolero No.RJ-13-TA-0777 in which Ashok Kumar Mehta was travelling. They were going to the Suratgarh Thermal Power Plant for getting employment. He deposed that Bolero was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, then at about 08.10 AM near Hadda Rohdi Hanuman Temple, when the Bolero was overtaking another vehicle then it collided head on with Bus No.RJ- 13-PA-3079, which was also being driven in a rash and negligent manner, due to which persons travelling in Bolero sustained serious injuries.

8. In cross-examination PW-2 deposed that at the time of the accident he was behind the Bolero at a distance of about 100 yards and he saw the accident. At the time of the accident the Bolero was being driven at a speed of 70 Kmph. This witness subsequently deposed that the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of the driver of Bolero No.RJ- 13-TA-0777 and the driver of Bus No.RJ-13-PA-3079 and on the basis of this evidence, the tribunal has concluded that the accident was caused due to the composite negligence of both drivers and has held each driver to be equally negligent towards the accident. It is true that in the criminal case a charge sheet has been submitted against the driver of the Bolero Pappu 4 FAFO No. 2761 of 2025 Ram under Section 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC but it is well settled that the claim petition is to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced before it and on the basis of the above charge sheet, it cannot be inferred that there was no composite negligence of the bus driver.

9. In view of the above analysis, the finding of the tribunal insofar as the issue of composite negligence is concerned, requires no interference.

10. No other issue has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company.

11. Accordingly, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

12. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.

13. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 11.08.2025 is affirmed. This Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the adequacy of compensation awarded to the claimants.

14. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. December 1, 2025 Himanshu (Sandeep Jain,J.)

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Ashok Kumar Mehta (deceased) was travelling on 16.12.2017 in Bolero No.RJ-13-TA-0777, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which was proved from the evidence of eye witness Jitendra Kumar Verma PW-2 which collided head on with Bus No.RJ-13-PA-3079. He further submitted that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the Bolero driver and in the criminal case, a charge sheet was also submitted against Bolero driver, but still the tribunal has concluded that there was composite negligence of both the bus and Bolero driver to the extent of 50% each and as such, saddled the appellant-insurance company with 50% liability to pay compensation to the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the charge sheet was filed against the Bolero driver as such, the tribunal erred in concluding that there was a composite negligence on the part of the bus driver also. In support of this 2 FAFO No. 2761 of 2025 contention learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ranjeet & another Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497.

3. I have heard the learned counsel of the appellant insurance company, perused the impugned judgment and documents submitted with the appeal.

4. The Apex Court in the case of Khenyei vs New India Assurance Company Limited & Others (2015) 9 SCC 273, held as under:-

22.1. In the case of composite negligence, the plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several.

22.2. In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tortfeasors vis-à-vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them.

22.3. In case all the joint tortfeasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/Tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tortfeasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of the payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/extent of their negligence has been determined by the court/Tribunal, in the main case one joint tortfeasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings.

22.4. It would not be appropriate for the court/Tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tortfeasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tortfeasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tortfeasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award.

5. The Apex Court in the case of Janabai WD/O Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors. vs. ICICI Lambord Insurance Co.Ltd. (2022) 10 SCC 512, held as under:- 3 FAFO No. 2761 of 2025

11. We find that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of Appellant 1 who suffered injuries in the accident. The application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. We find that the entire approach of the High Court is clearly not sustainable. (emphasis supplied)

6. The claimants have examined Poonam Singh as PW-1 and Jitendra Kumar Verma as PW-2. No oral evidence was adduced by the owner, driver and insurer of Bolero and bus.

7. PW-1 Poonam Singh has very fairly accepted that she was not an eye- witness of the accident. PW-2 Jitendra Kumar Verma has deposed that on

16.12.2017 at about 08.10 AM he alongwith Shribhagwan were travelling on their motorcycle behind the Bolero No.RJ-13-TA-0777 in which Ashok Kumar Mehta was travelling. They were going to the Suratgarh Thermal Power Plant for getting employment. He deposed that Bolero was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, then at about 08.10 AM near Hadda Rohdi Hanuman Temple, when the Bolero was overtaking another vehicle then it collided head on with Bus No.RJ- 13-PA-3079, which was also being driven in a rash and negligent manner, due to which persons travelling in Bolero sustained serious injuries.

8. In cross-examination PW-2 deposed that at the time of the accident he was behind the Bolero at a distance of about 100 yards and he saw the accident. At the time of the accident the Bolero was being driven at a speed of 70 Kmph. This witness subsequently deposed that the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of the driver of Bolero No.RJ- 13-TA-0777 and the driver of Bus No.RJ-13-PA-3079 and on the basis of this evidence, the tribunal has concluded that the accident was caused due to the composite negligence of both drivers and has held each driver to be equally negligent towards the accident. It is true that in the criminal case a charge sheet has been submitted against the driver of the Bolero Pappu 4 FAFO No. 2761 of 2025 Ram under Section 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC but it is well settled that the claim petition is to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced before it and on the basis of the above charge sheet, it cannot be inferred that there was no composite negligence of the bus driver.

9. In view of the above analysis, the finding of the tribunal insofar as the issue of composite negligence is concerned, requires no interference.

10. No other issue has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company.

11. Accordingly, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

12. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.

13. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 11.08.2025 is affirmed. This Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the adequacy of compensation awarded to the claimants.

14. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. December 1, 2025 Himanshu (Sandeep Jain,J.)