(MAC No.118/2020) CGHC010451012019 2026:CGHC:31596 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 118 of 2020 {Arising out of award dated 15-11-2017 passed by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja in MACT No.179/2016} Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, Through Authorized Signatory Ramesh Kumar Sinha, Aged about 32 years, R/o Sixth Floor, Mega Mall Road, Kanpur, U.P. (Non-Applicant No.4) ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Priyanka Sinha, W/o Lt. Sunil Kumar Sinha, Aged about 24 years, 2. Prem Prassad Sinha (Died and Deleted) as per Hon'ble Court Order dated 30/03/2026 (Claimant No.1 & 2) 3. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, P.S. and Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No.1) 4. Jainullah Khan, S/o Nasrullah Khan, Aged about 26 years, R/o Village Kundi, Post Ketat, P.S. Rehla, District Gadwa, Jharkhand, Present Address: C/o Rajesh Agrawal, Lakhanpur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No.2) 5. Rajesh Kumar Agrawal, S/o Chandiram, Aged about 45 years, R/o Juna, Lakhanpur, P.S. and Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No.3) SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2026.07.24 16:03:49 +0530 (MAC No.118/2020) 6. Jatan Das, S/o Dhuran Das, Aged about 31 years, R/o Village Bhittikala, P.S. and Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No.5) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shekhar Rao Saheb Amin, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 23/07/2026 1. The appellant herein/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the impugned award dated 15-11-2017 passed by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja in MACT No.179/2016, by which a compensation of ₹ 11,71,804/- has been awarded to the claimant/respondent No.1 herein by fastening liability upon the appellant herein/Insurance Company to pay half of it i.e. ₹ 5,85,902/-. 2. Mr. Palash Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein/Insurance Company, would submit that driver and owner of the offending vehicle truck were solely responsible for the accident and therefore the appellant herein/Insurance Company may be exonerated from the liability from payment of compensation. 3. Ms. Priyanka Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant/respondent No.1 herein, and Mr. Pravesh Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company of the Car/ (MAC No.118/2020) respondent No.3 herein, would support the impugned award and oppose the appeal and submit that the impugned award does not call for any interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Before proceeding with the case in hand to decide the lis between the parties, it would be appropriate to notice the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Limited and others1 regarding composite and contributory negligence in which their Lordships held as under: - “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 v. Karvarnan2 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: (SCC pp.750-51, paras 6-7) “6. 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is 1 (2015) 9 SCC 273 2 2008 (3) SCC 748 (MAC No.118/2020) 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 wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer, 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.” The decision in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan (supra) has been relied upon in A.P. SRTC v. K. Hemlatha3. 3 2008 (6) SCC 767 (MAC No.118/2020) 16. In Pawan Kumar v. Harkishan Dass Mohan Lal4, the decisions in T.O. Anthony (supra) and Hemlatha (supra) have been affirmed, and this Court has laid down that where plaintiff/claimant himself is found to be negligent jointly and severally, liability cannot arise and the plaintiff’s claim to the extent of his own negligence, as may be quantified, will have to be severed. He is entitled to damages not attributable to his own negligence. The law/distinction with respect to contributory as well as composite negligence has been considered by this Court in Machindranath Kernath Kasar v. D.S. Mylarappa5 and also as to joint tortfeasors. This Court has referred to Charlesworth and Percy on Negligence as to cause of action in regard to joint tortfeasors thus: (Machindranath Kernath Kasar case (supra), SCC p. 212, para 42) “42. Joint tortfeasors, as per 10th Edn. of Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence, have been described as under : ‘Wrongdoers are deemed to be joint tortfeasors, within the meaning of the rule, where the cause of action against each of them is the same, namely, that the same evidence would support an action against them, individually….. Accordingly, they will be jointly liable for a tort which they both commit or for which they are responsible because the law imputes the commission of the same wrongful act to two or more persons at the same time. This occurs in cases of (a) agency; (b) vicarious liability; and (c) where a tort is committed in the course of a joint act, whilst pursuing a common purpose agreed between them.” 17. The question also arises as to the remedies available to one of the joint tortfeasors from whom compensation has been recovered. When the other joint tortfeasor has not been impleaded, obviously question of negligence of non- impleaded driver could not be decided apportionment of composite negligence cannot be made in the absence of impleadment of joint tortfeasor. Thus, it would be open to the impleaded joint tort feasors after making payment of compensation, so as to sue the other joint tort feasor and to recover from him the contribution to the extent of his negligence. However, in case when both the tortfeasors are before the court/tribunal, if evidence is sufficient, it may 42014 (3) SCC 590 5 2008 (13) SCC 198 (MAC No.118/2020) determine the extent of their negligence so that one joint tortfeasor can recover the amount so determined from the other joint tortfeasor in the execution proceedings, whereas the claimant has right to recover the compensation from both or any one of them.” 6. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that owner & driver of both the vehicles tractor and car and the Insurance Company/appellant herein are responsible and thus, they would pay the compensation to the extent of 50% of the total award amount and ordered for payment of 50% of the compensation awarded. Since the appellant Insurance Company did not lead any evidence to demonstrate that the driver of the other offending vehicle is solely negligent for the accident, liability is fastened upon the appellant herein/Insurance Company. 7. Now, cross-appeal has been filed on behalf of the claimant. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, interest rate awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to 7.5% per annum. Accordingly, the cross-appeal of the claimant stands disposed of. 8. Cross-appeal has also been filed on behalf of the Insurance Company/respondent No.3 herein. Since the drivers of both the vehicles have been prosecuted for offence under Section 304A of the IPC, the cross-appeal of respondent No.3 herein stands dismissed. 9. The appeal stands disposed of and the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma