High Court · 2025

4. From perusal of the facts as set forth by the learned counsels for the parties it emerges that an accident is said to have occurred involving a Tractor and a Magic vehicle. The appellant is the owner of the Magic vehicle which was being driven by the appellant's driver namely Rajendra.

5. Learned Tribunal after having considered this aspect of the matter, while awarding compensation, has reduced 30% of compensation towards contributory negligence which is said to have been committed by the Magic vehicle.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the learned Tribunal has committed an error while reducing the compensation inasmuch as there would be a difference between contributory and composite negligence. It is contended that as the appellant himself was not the driver of the Magic vehicle and admittedly the Magic vehicle was being driven by the driver which had an accident with the Tractor and the appellant had filed a claim application before the learned Tribunal by only impleading the owner of the Tractor consequently the said accident would fall within the ambit of 'composite negligence' and thus there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to have reduced the compensation towards contributory negligence.

7. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others - (2015) 9 SCC 273, to contend that Hon'ble Supreme Court has elucidated the difference between contributory and composite negligence and while placing reliance on its earlier judgment in the case of T.O. Anthony vs. Karvarnan - (2008) 3 SCC 748, has held that 'Composite negligence' would refer 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.

8. It is thus contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in reducing the compensation by 30% on the ground of there being contributory negligence rather the case of the appellant would fall within the ambit of being composite negligence and consequently the award of the learned Tribunal is erroneous so far as it pertains to deduction by 30% of the awarded amount.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant further argues that the learned tribunal has not awarded any medical expenses towards the period from 14.08.2013 to 04.09.2013 and has also not awarded any expenses towards the medicines which the appellant/claimant had purchased for the purpose of his treatment and thus, it is prayed that the amount for compensation be atleast enhanced towards the expenses rendered for the period of from 14.08.2013 to 04.09.2013 and towards expenses of purchase of medicines.

10. On the other hand, Sri P.K.Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3- Insurance Company argues while placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.O.Anthony (supra) that it has held that an accident which is head-on would indicate that there was no due diligence on the part of the drivers and consequently, it cannot be said that the case would be one of composite negligence rather it would be a case of contributory negligence.

11. Elaborating the same, argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that a perusal of the judgment passed by the learned tribunal would indicate that the learned tribunal has considered this aspect of the matter exhaustively while considering issues no. 1 & 5 of which issue no. 5 was as to whether both the vehicles involved in the accident were equally responsible for the same. Learned tribunal has considered that both the vehicles met with an accident head-on and that the condition of magic vehicle, in which the claimant was travelling, indicates that neither the left side nor the right side of the vehicle crashed against the tractor to indicate that there was a head-on collision between the vehicles which also resulted in the glass of magic vehicle being damaged and broken which all indicate that no efforts were made by the driver of the magic vehicle to avoid the accident and consequently, the learned tribunal has concluded that the same indicates that there was contributory negligence on the part of both the vehicles.

12. Further argument is that as the vehicle owner is the appellant/ claimant himself and the claimant was sitting inside the vehicle and the vehicle was being driven by the driver, consequently, the driver, would be an agent of the claimant/appellant and thus for any act of the agent, the owner would be responsible and consequently, the learned tribunal has not erred in holding that there has been contributory negligence on the part of both the vehicles and thus, has reduced the compensation by 30 %.

13. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and perused the records.

14. From a perusal of records it emerges that an accident took place involving a tractor and a magic vehicle. The appellant/claimant is the owner of the magic vehicle which was being driven by the appellant's- driver namely Sri Rajendra and the appellant was sitting inside the vehicle besides his driver at the time of the accident.

15. Learned tribunal after considering that there was a head-on collision between the tractor and the magic vehicle has reduced the compensation awarded to claimant by 30 % on the ground of contributory negligence.

16. Reliance has been placed by the appellant on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Khenyei (supra) to contend that the instant case would be one of composite negligence and not contributory negligence as such, the learned tribunal has patently erred in reducing the compensation by 30 %.

17. Perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Khenyei (supra) indicates that the Apex Court after considering its earlier judgment passed in the case of T.O. Anthony (supra) has carved out a distinction between "composite negligence" & "contributory negligence". In the case of composite negligence, the Apex Court has held that composite negligence would be a 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 wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary for the Court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. However, where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person and partly as a result of his own negligence then the negligence on the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as contributory negligence.

18. For the sake of convenience, the relevant observations of the Apex Court in the case of Khenyei (supra) are reproduced below:-

15. There is a difference between contributory and composite negligence. In the case of contributory negligence, a person who has himself contributed to the extent cannot claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident to the extent of his own negligence; whereas in the case of composite negligence, a person who has suffered has not contributed to the accident but the outcome of combination of negligence of two or more other persons. This Court in T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan and Ors [2008 (3) SCC 748] has held that in case of contributory negligence, 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. It is only in the case of contributory negligence that the injured himself has contributed by his negligence in the accident. Extent of his negligence is required to be determined as damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries have to be reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder : “6. '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 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.

7. 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. The High Court has failed to correct the said error.”

19. In instant case, one of the vehicle involved in the head-on collision was the magic vehicle which is owned by the claimant/appellant and was in fact being driven by the driver of the claimant/appellant. Once, there was head-on collision and the learned tribunal after going through the evidence has specifically concluded that no efforts were made by the driver of the magic vehicle to avoid the accident in any manner rather there was a head-on collision consequently, the learned tribunal has concluded that this would be a case of contributory negligence and as such, a 30 % deduction from the compensation as awarded in favour of the claimant has been made towards contributory negligence.

20. Considering the specific finding as given by learned tribunal of there being head-on collision and no effort being made by the claimant/driver to avoid the said accident thus indicates that there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant's-driver, as in this case and thus the case of the claimant would not be covered by the "composite negligence" as elucidated by the Apex Court in the case of Khenyei (supra).

21. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned tribunal has not awarded the medical expenses for the period from 14.08.2013 to 04.09.2013, a perusal of the records would indicate that the said period of medical treatment of the appellant was in the Aseer Ahamad Memorial Life Line Medical Center for which a discharge card has been filed by the claimant numbered as 18GHA/37.

23. The Court has perused the said discharge card which indicates the diagnosis of the claimant as "constistine kidney.......".

24. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to indicate the nexus between the injury suffered by him which was a fracture viz-a-viz the treatment for kidney which has been received by him for the period from 14.08.2013 to 04.09.2013 and thus, no error is found in the reasoning and finding of the learned tribunal that for the period of

14.08.2013 to 04.09.2013, the appellant/claimant would not be entitled for any medical expenses.

25. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that no expenses have been given towards the expenses for medicine, the Court has again gone through the receipts of the alleged medicines that had been filed by the claimant before the learned tribunal which indicates that primarily the said receipts do not indicate about any medicine having been either prescribed or for that matter being purchased by the appellant rather primarily all the receipts only indicate the medicine as "Dawa" without indicating the name of the medicines. Thus, there cannot be any occasion for award or any compensation for the alleged medicines.

26. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

27. Let the learned trial Court record be returned back. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Pachhere/- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

4. From perusal of the facts as set forth by the learned counsels for the parties it emerges that an accident is said to have occurred involving a Tractor and a Magic vehicle. The appellant is the owner of the Magic vehicle which was being driven by the appellant's driver namely Rajendra.

5. Learned Tribunal after having considered this aspect of the matter, while awarding compensation, has reduced 30% of compensation towards contributory negligence which is said to have been committed by the Magic vehicle.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the learned Tribunal has committed an error while reducing the compensation inasmuch as there would be a difference between contributory and composite negligence. It is contended that as the appellant himself was not the driver of the Magic vehicle and admittedly the Magic vehicle was being driven by the driver which had an accident with the Tractor and the appellant had filed a claim application before the learned Tribunal by only impleading the owner of the Tractor consequently the said accident would fall within the ambit of 'composite negligence' and thus there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to have reduced the compensation towards contributory negligence.

7. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others - (2015) 9 SCC 273, to contend that Hon'ble Supreme Court has elucidated the difference between contributory and composite negligence and while placing reliance on its earlier judgment in the case of T.O. Anthony vs. Karvarnan - (2008) 3 SCC 748, has held that 'Composite negligence' would refer 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.

8. It is thus contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in reducing the compensation by 30% on the ground of there being contributory negligence rather the case of the appellant would fall within the ambit of being composite negligence and consequently the award of the learned Tribunal is erroneous so far as it pertains to deduction by 30% of the awarded amount.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant further argues that the learned tribunal has not awarded any medical expenses towards the period from 14.08.2013 to 04.09.2013 and has also not awarded any expenses towards the medicines which the appellant/claimant had purchased for the purpose of his treatment and thus, it is prayed that the amount for compensation be atleast enhanced towards the expenses rendered for the period of from 14.08.2013 to 04.09.2013 and towards expenses of purchase of medicines.

10. On the other hand, Sri P.K.Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3- Insurance Company argues while placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.O.Anthony (supra) that it has held that an accident which is head-on would indicate that there was no due diligence on the part of the drivers and consequently, it cannot be said that the case would be one of composite negligence rather it would be a case of contributory negligence.

11. Elaborating the same, argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that a perusal of the judgment passed by the learned tribunal would indicate that the learned tribunal has considered this aspect of the matter exhaustively while considering issues no. 1 & 5 of which issue no. 5 was as to whether both the vehicles involved in the accident were equally responsible for the same. Learned tribunal has considered that both the vehicles met with an accident head-on and that the condition of magic vehicle, in which the claimant was travelling, indicates that neither the left side nor the right side of the vehicle crashed against the tractor to indicate that there was a head-on collision between the vehicles which also resulted in the glass of magic vehicle being damaged and broken which all indicate that no efforts were made by the driver of the magic vehicle to avoid the accident and consequently, the learned tribunal has concluded that the same indicates that there was contributory negligence on the part of both the vehicles.

12. Further argument is that as the vehicle owner is the appellant/ claimant himself and the claimant was sitting inside the vehicle and the vehicle was being driven by the driver, consequently, the driver, would be an agent of the claimant/appellant and thus for any act of the agent, the owner would be responsible and consequently, the learned tribunal has not erred in holding that there has been contributory negligence on the part of both the vehicles and thus, has reduced the compensation by 30 %.

13. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and perused the records.

14. From a perusal of records it emerges that an accident took place involving a tractor and a magic vehicle. The appellant/claimant is the owner of the magic vehicle which was being driven by the appellant's- driver namely Sri Rajendra and the appellant was sitting inside the vehicle besides his driver at the time of the accident.

15. Learned tribunal after considering that there was a head-on collision between the tractor and the magic vehicle has reduced the compensation awarded to claimant by 30 % on the ground of contributory negligence.

16. Reliance has been placed by the appellant on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Khenyei (supra) to contend that the instant case would be one of composite negligence and not contributory negligence as such, the learned tribunal has patently erred in reducing the compensation by 30 %.

17. Perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Khenyei (supra) indicates that the Apex Court after considering its earlier judgment passed in the case of T.O. Anthony (supra) has carved out a distinction between "composite negligence" & "contributory negligence". In the case of composite negligence, the Apex Court has held that composite negligence would be a 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 wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary for the Court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. However, where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person and partly as a result of his own negligence then the negligence on the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as contributory negligence.

18. For the sake of convenience, the relevant observations of the Apex Court in the case of Khenyei (supra) are reproduced below:-

15. There is a difference between contributory and composite negligence. In the case of contributory negligence, a person who has himself contributed to the extent cannot claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident to the extent of his own negligence; whereas in the case of composite negligence, a person who has suffered has not contributed to the accident but the outcome of combination of negligence of two or more other persons. This Court in T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan and Ors [2008 (3) SCC 748] has held that in case of contributory negligence, 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. It is only in the case of contributory negligence that the injured himself has contributed by his negligence in the accident. Extent of his negligence is required to be determined as damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries have to be reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder : “6. '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 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.

7. 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. The High Court has failed to correct the said error.”

19. In instant case, one of the vehicle involved in the head-on collision was the magic vehicle which is owned by the claimant/appellant and was in fact being driven by the driver of the claimant/appellant. Once, there was head-on collision and the learned tribunal after going through the evidence has specifically concluded that no efforts were made by the driver of the magic vehicle to avoid the accident in any manner rather there was a head-on collision consequently, the learned tribunal has concluded that this would be a case of contributory negligence and as such, a 30 % deduction from the compensation as awarded in favour of the claimant has been made towards contributory negligence.

20. Considering the specific finding as given by learned tribunal of there being head-on collision and no effort being made by the claimant/driver to avoid the said accident thus indicates that there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant's-driver, as in this case and thus the case of the claimant would not be covered by the "composite negligence" as elucidated by the Apex Court in the case of Khenyei (supra).

21. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned tribunal has not awarded the medical expenses for the period from 14.08.2013 to 04.09.2013, a perusal of the records would indicate that the said period of medical treatment of the appellant was in the Aseer Ahamad Memorial Life Line Medical Center for which a discharge card has been filed by the claimant numbered as 18GHA/37.

23. The Court has perused the said discharge card which indicates the diagnosis of the claimant as "constistine kidney.......".

24. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to indicate the nexus between the injury suffered by him which was a fracture viz-a-viz the treatment for kidney which has been received by him for the period from 14.08.2013 to 04.09.2013 and thus, no error is found in the reasoning and finding of the learned tribunal that for the period of

14.08.2013 to 04.09.2013, the appellant/claimant would not be entitled for any medical expenses.

25. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that no expenses have been given towards the expenses for medicine, the Court has again gone through the receipts of the alleged medicines that had been filed by the claimant before the learned tribunal which indicates that primarily the said receipts do not indicate about any medicine having been either prescribed or for that matter being purchased by the appellant rather primarily all the receipts only indicate the medicine as "Dawa" without indicating the name of the medicines. Thus, there cannot be any occasion for award or any compensation for the alleged medicines.

26. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

27. Let the learned trial Court record be returned back. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Pachhere/- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench