1 2025:CGHC:55671 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 132 of 2023 Yuvraj Sahu S/o Nand Kumar Sahu, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Manikchauri, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant/Claimant versus 1 - Ifko Tokiyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, C/o. Shop No. 205, 2nd Floor, M.M. Silver Plaza, Near Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 01, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)..........(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle) 2 - Parmeshwar Sahu S/o Aju Ram Sahu, Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Manikchauri, Tahsil Kawardha, At Present R/o. Ward No. 03, Kailash Nagar, Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)............Owner Of The Offending Vehicle ... Respondent(s) HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.11.17 12:10:10 +0530 2 For Appellant : Smt. N.K. Kashyap on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Shrejal Gupta on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Deepak Kumar Nishad on behalf of Mr. Sanjeev Sahu, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 14.11.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant challenging the impugned award dated 10/10/2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 12/2022 whereby the claim application filed by him under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 has been rejected on the ground that since the driver of the motorcycle died, his negligence could not be proved, therefore, the appellant/claimant is not liable for any compensation. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case of composite negligence as the appellant was sitting as a pillion rider in the motorcycle, as such, the Claims Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim application filed by the appellant/claimant. 3 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned award and submit that the Claims Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim application filed by the appellant/claimant, therefore, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. A careful perusal of the record would show that the accident occurred on account of collision of two vehicles and appellant was sitting as a pillion rider in the motorcycle which was being driven by deceased Ravendra Sahu, as such, this is a case of composite negligence. 6. With respect to composite negligence, the Supreme Court, in the matter of T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan and Others1, has held as under :- “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 wrongdoers, 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 wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each 1 (2008) 3 SCC 748 4 wrongdoer 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 on 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 stand 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.” 7. Thus, since this is a case of composite negligence, the appellant/claimant had the choice of proceeding against single or both the drivers and as such, the claim application filed by the appellant/claimant under Sectoin 166 of the Act of 1988 would be maintainable. The impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Claims Tribunal for deciding it afresh in accordance with law. 5 8. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneets