1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 24.04.2025 Order passed on : 31.10.2025 MAC No. 437 of 2017 1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Private Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Plot No.48, Zone 2, M.P.Nagar Bhopal M.P. .................Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Motorcycle No. C.G.04-C J-5426/ Non-Applicant No.3, Madhya Pradesh ... Appellant versus 1 - Sanat @ Sanad Kumar Verma (Died) Through Legal Heirs As Per Honble Court Order Date- 02-04-2019. 1.1 - Rajesh Verma S/o Late Sanat Kumar Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Keshli (Khiloura), Balodabazar, Bhainsa, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 1.2 - Umesh Kumar Verma S/o Late Sanat Kumar Verma Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Keshli (Khiloura), Balodabazar, Bhainsa, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 1.3 - Mukesh Verma S/o Late Sanat Kumar Verma Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Keshli (Khiloura), Balodabazar, Bhainsa, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jageshwar Sahu S/o Janak Ram Sahu, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Goukheda, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ................Driver Of Offending Vehicle Motorcycle No. C.G.04-C J-5426/ Non-Applicant No.1, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Balwant Verma S/o Parsadi Verma, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Goukheda, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ................Owner Of Offending Vehicle Motorcycle No. C.G.04-C J-5426/ Non-Applicant No.2, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 For Appellant : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 1.3 : Ms. Shalini Jangde, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate For Resp. No. 2 and 3 : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C.A.V. Order 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the Award dated 06.01.2017 passed by the learned 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 220/11 in the matter of Sanat @ Sanad Kumar Verma vs. Jageshwar Sahu & Others. 2. The averment in this appeal, in brief, is that the present case arises out of a motor accident claim filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, concerning the unfortunate death of one Smt. Surja Bai Verma. The claim petition was instituted by respondent No. 1, who alleged that the death of the deceased resulted from a motor accident that occurred on 18.08.2009. The claimant sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,50,000/-, asserting that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle involved, and that the deceased was the primary earning member of her family. 3. On the fateful day of 18.08.2009, Smt. Surja Bai Verma was traveling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration number C.G.-04- DD-4396. The motorcycle was proceeding from Village Keshri to Village Bhalawdih at approximately 5:00 p.m., and it was being driven at a moderate speed, keeping to the left side of the road. When the 3 vehicle reached near Village Bitkuli, another motorcycle bearing registration number C.G.-04-CJ-5426, driven by respondent No. 2, approached from behind at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, and it violently dashed into the motorcycle on which the deceased was riding. Due to the severe impact of the collision, Smt. Surja Bai was thrown off the motorcycle and sustained serious injuries on her head and other parts of the body. Immediately after the incident, she was rushed to the Government Hospital, Bhatapara, where she was admitted for treatment. However, despite medical intervention, Smt. Surja Bai succumbed to her injuries during the course of treatment. The matter was duly reported to the Police Station, Suhela, District Raipur, upon which Crime No. 118/2009 was registered. The case was lodged under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, dealing respectively with rash driving, causing hurt and grievous hurt by endangering life, and causing death by negligence. 4. In the claim petition, the claimant asserted that the deceased was 47 years old at the time of the accident and was earning approximately Rs. 6,000/- per month through her work. It was further contended that the deceased was the main source of livelihood for her family, and the claimant, being financially and emotionally dependent on her, had suffered immense mental agony, emotional trauma, and economic hardship due to her untimely death. On these grounds, the claimant sought a compensation amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- for loss of dependency, loss of consortium, and other incidental damages. In response to the claim, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who were respectively the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, filed a joint written 4 statement. They denied all allegations of rash and negligent driving and contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself. They further submitted that the compensation amount claimed was excessive and exaggerated, and in any case, since the vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company, any liability arising from the accident would fall upon the insurer, and not upon them personally. The appellant insurance company, in its separate written statement, took the defense that the accident occurred due to the negligence and contributory fault of the claimant and his driver. The insurer argued that it was a case of contributory negligence, and that the claim was not maintainable in the absence of the owner, driver, and insurance company of the second motorcycle (bearing registration number C.G.-04-CJ-5426) being made parties to the proceedings. The insurer also contended that the claimed amount was highly inflated and that there had been a violation of the policy conditions, which absolved the insurer from any liability to indemnify the owner. Therefore, the insurer prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Upon appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the vehicle driven by respondent No. 2 was indeed being driven in a rash and negligent manner, and that the accident occurred solely due to his fault. Accordingly, the Tribunal held respondent No. 2 liable for the occurrence of the accident and consequent death of Smt. Surja Bai Verma. The Tribunal thereafter proceeded to assess compensation. While determining the compensation, the Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 47 years, as noted in paragraph 29 of the award, and adopted a multiplier of 13 as per the Second Schedule to the 5 Motor Vehicles Act. In the absence of documentary proof of income, the Tribunal assessed the annual income at Rs. 48,000/- (i.e., Rs. 4,000/- per month). On this basis, it calculated the dependency compensation at Rs. 6,32,000/-, and also awarded Rs. 25,000/- under the head of loss of consortium or loss of company, and Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses, culminating in a total compensation of Rs. 6,60,000/- in favor of the claimant. However, the appellant insurance company challenged the award as being illegal, baseless, and perverse, arguing that the finding of Tribunal on the issue of dependency and age was erroneous. It was contended that there was no evidence to substantiate the annual income of the deceased, and therefore, the assessment of Rs. 48,000/- per annum was arbitrary. It was further alleged that respondent No. 1 was an able-bodied person capable of earning, and thus could not be considered dependent upon the deceased. The insurer also submitted that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the plea of contributory negligence and ignored the non-joinder of necessary parties, namely, the owner, driver, and insurer of the other vehicle involved in the accident. Hence, the insurer prayed that the award be set aside or suitably modified, as the compensation awarded was excessive and not in accordance with law. In essence, the appeal revolves around the findings of negligence, calculation of compensation, dependency determination, and validity of the multiplier applied, as well as the question of liability between the insurer and the insured. The case thus presents important considerations concerning proof of income, determination of dependency, assessment of just compensation, and the extent of liability of insurer under the Motor Vehicles Act. 6 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has gravely erred, both in fact and in law, in passing the impugned award dated 06.01.2017, whereby a sum of Rs. 6,60,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded to the claimants. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are perverse, contrary to the evidence on record, and have resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The appellant insurance company is, therefore, constrained to prefer the present appeal seeking appropriate relief. The tribunal has erred in not holding the accident as a case of contributory negligence It is submitted that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in concluding that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, without appreciating that the case squarely falls within the ambit of contributory negligence. The facts and evidence on record clearly reveal that at the time of the accident, there were two vehicles involved, namely, motorcycle bearing registration number C.G.-04-DD-4396, on which the deceased, Smt. Surja Bai Verma, was traveling as a pillion rider, and motorcycle bearing registration number C.G.-04-CJ-5426, which allegedly dashed against the former vehicle from behind. The Tribunal failed to consider that the driver of the motorcycle on which the deceased was riding, also had a duty to exercise reasonable care and caution while on the road. The evidence indicates that he too contributed to the occurrence of the accident either by not keeping adequate distance, failing to maintain lane discipline, or not taking preventive measures to avoid collision. The learned counsel for appellant submits that the accident, therefore, cannot be attributed entirely to one party, and that the principle of apportionment of liability ought to have been applied in 7 consonance with the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in similar cases of composite negligence. The non-consideration of the plea of contributory negligence renders the impugned award unsustainable. The Tribunal erred in fastening the entire liability on the appellant, even though the negligence of the driver of the other vehicle (C.G.-04-DD-4396) was apparent from the record. The Tribunal has wrongly held that non-joinder of the owner, driver, and insurer of the other vehicle does not affect the maintainability of the claim The learned Tribunal has further erred in holding that non-joinder of the owner, driver, and insurer of motorcycle No. C.G.-04-DD-4396 (the vehicle on which the deceased was traveling) does not vitiate the proceedings. It is a well-settled principle that when two vehicles are involved in an accident, the claim petition must be filed against the owners, drivers, and insurers of both vehicles, to ensure a proper and just adjudication of liability. In the instant case, the claimants deliberately omitted to implead the necessary parties connected with the motorcycle C.G.-04-DD-4396, thereby preventing the Tribunal from apportioning negligence and determining liability fairly. This omission is fatal to the claim petition. The finding of Tribunal that the claim is maintainable despite such non-joinder is, therefore, legally unsustainable. The claim ought to have been dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties, as per the provisions of law and the judicial precedents governing motor accident claims. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the driver of the motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. 7. The learned counsel for appellant further submits that the Tribunal erred in overlooking the uncontroverted evidence on record, which 8 clearly establishes that respondent No. 2, the driver of the offending motorcycle, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The evidence of Shri Rajesh Kumar Bhargava, produced by the insurance company, reveals that the driver was merely holding a learner’s licence. As per Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, a holder of a learner’s licence is permitted to drive a vehicle only under certain specific conditions, namely, that there must be displayed on the front and rear of the vehicle the letter “L” in red, and a person possessing a permanent licence of the same class must accompany the learner at the time of driving. In the present case, no such compliance has been proved. The driver was driving the motorcycle alone, thereby violating the conditions of the learner’s licence and committing a clear breach of policy terms. This breach goes to the root of the insurance contract. Hence, the insurer cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured in case of such a violation. The failure of Tribunal to appreciate this legal position has resulted in an erroneous award. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in not appreciating that the offending vehicle was being plied in contravention of the terms and conditions of the policy. The evidence brought on record, including the testimony of Shri Kant Dwivedi (Ex. D-1 and D-2), demonstrates that the cover note in question, Cover Note No. 80556, was never issued by the appellant company. On the contrary, it was proved beyond doubt that this cover note was lost from the New Market, Center Point, Bhopal, and that the loss had been duly reported to the T.T. Nagar Police Station, Bhopal. A public notice regarding the loss of the said cover note had also been published in a daily newspaper of Bhopal, thereby putting the general public to notice. In 9 light of these facts, any policy purportedly based on the said cover note was fraudulent and unenforceable in the eyes of law. The finding of Tribunal that the policy was valid and subsisting is contrary to documentary evidence and ought to be set aside. The company, having never issued the cover note, cannot be fastened with liability to pay compensation. 8. Without prejudice to the above submissions, it is further argued that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and disproportionate to the evidence on record. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month (Rs. 48,000/- per annum) in the absence of any documentary proof. No salary slip, employment record, or corroborative witness was produced to establish the alleged income of Rs. 6,000/- per month. Despite this, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 13 and calculated a dependency of Rs. 6,32,000/-, followed by additional sums under various heads, resulting in an inflated total of Rs. 6,60,000/-. The Tribunal failed to consider that the claimant was not fully dependent upon the deceased and was himself capable of earning a livelihood. Therefore, the dependency and multiplier applied are erroneous, and the award deserves to be suitably reduced. The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has gravely erred in treating Cover Note No. 80556 as genuine. The appellant has adduced cogent evidence to establish that the said cover note was forged and fabricated. It bears the signatures of two persons but lacks the mandatory seal of the insurance company, which is an essential requirement for any manual policy to be valid. The owner himself, Shri Balwant Verma, admitted in his statement that he had purchased the vehicle second-hand and did not remember from 10 whom he obtained the insurance. He also admitted that he had not produced any receipt or demand letter in support of having purchased a policy. This admission, coupled with the evidence of loss of the cover note and the publication of public notice, clearly proves that the vehicle was not insured with the appellant at the relevant time. Hence, the company is entitled to be exonerated from all liability arising out of the said accident. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satish Kumar & Ors., passed in M.A.C. No. 368/2011 wherein it has been categorically held that where a fake or forged insurance cover is relied upon, the insurer cannot be saddled with any liability. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned award dated 06.01.2017, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and exonerate the appellant/insurance company from payment of any compensation, as the vehicle in question was not validly insured with the appellant; Alternatively, in the event that liability is upheld, the quantum of compensation be suitably reduced, as the award is excessive, arbitrary, and unsupported by evidence. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 the present appeal filed by the appellant / insurance company is devoid of merit, misconceived in law, and contrary to the evidence available on record. The learned Claims Tribunal, after a careful and just appreciation of the evidence adduced by both parties, has rightly awarded compensation to the claimants and has correctly fastened the liability upon the insurer. The present appeal is nothing but an attempt by the appellant / insurance company to evade its lawful obligation under the policy and 11 to shift the burden of payment upon the respondents who are legally protected under the insurance cover. The respondents further submit that the award dated 06.01.2017, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, is based on sound reasoning, supported by evidence, and in accordance with settled legal principles. The findings regarding negligence, validity of insurance cover, and driving licence have all been reached after a detailed appreciation of facts and documentary evidence. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the insurance company deserves to be dismissed in limine. The allegation of contributory negligence raised by the insurance company is wholly misconceived and without foundation. The evidence on record clearly shows that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing registration number CG-04-CJ-5426. The FIR, site map, and eye-witness statements indicate that the vehicle driven by respondent No. 2 struck from behind the motorcycle on which the deceased was riding. As per settled law, the vehicle which collides from behind is presumed to be negligent unless contrary evidence is adduced, which in this case, the appellant has utterly failed to do. No evidence whatsoever has been produced by the appellant to demonstrate any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased or the driver of the other motorcycle. The finding of the Tribunal that negligence was solely attributable to the respondent driver is thus well- founded and deserves to be maintained. The contention that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner, driver, and insurer of the motorcycle bearing No. CG-04-DD-4396 is equally untenable. The settled position of law is that in a case of composite or joint negligence, the claimant has the right to proceed against any or all of the 12 tortfeasors, and non-joinder of one does not defeat the claim. The liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several. Therefore, the claimants were well within their legal right to proceed against the owner, driver, and insurer of the motorcycle which directly caused the accident. The Tribunal has rightly held that the non-joinder of other parties does not affect the maintainability of the claim petition, and the award cannot be interfered with on that ground. The contention of learned counsel for appellant that the cover note bearing No. 80568 was forged or not issued by the insurance company has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. The insurance company failed to discharge its burden of proving that the said cover note was fake. The evidence of D.W.-1 Shri Shrikant Dwivedi and D.W.-2 Shri Puneet Rathore produced by the insurer was inconsistent, contradictory, and unreliable. The record shows that the insurance cover note was issued on 12.07.2009, and the alleged complaint of the missing cover note book was made only on 16.09.2009, nearly two months after the policy issuance and almost a month after the accident. D.W.-1 himself admitted in cross- examination that on 12.07.2009, the cover note was not missing, thereby confirming that the vehicle was validly insured at the time of the accident. Moreover, no criminal or departmental action was initiated by the insurance company against the alleged misuse of cover note No. 80568, which further substantiates that the allegation of insurer is an afterthought to escape liability. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly concluded that the vehicle was validly insured with the appellant at the time of the accident, and the claim of appellant of a forged cover note is without merit. This finding is further supported by judicial precedent, notably the judgment of this Court in the matter of Reliance General 13 Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kunjlata and Others, passed in MAC No. 1472/2017 wherein it was held that unless the insurer produces clinching and cogent evidence proving the forgery of a cover note, mere assertion or suspicion is insufficient to disown liability. The appellant has further contended that the respondent No. 2 was only holding a learner’s licence and thus was not authorized to drive the motorcycle at the relevant time. This contention is wholly misconceived and contrary to law. As per Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, a person holding a valid learner’s licence is permitted to drive a motorcycle, provided certain conditions are met. The proviso to Rule 3 specifically states that in the case of motorcycles, the requirement of an instructor accompanying the learner does not apply, unlike in the case of four-wheelers which require dual control. Furthermore, as per Rule 24(3)(v) of the Rules, the requirement for dual control facilities and instructor accompaniment applies only to motor vehicles other than motorcycles. Therefore, the argument of the insurer that the driver of the motorcycle required an instructor to accompany him is legally unsustainable. This position has been reaffirmed by several judicial pronouncements. In the matter of Senior Divisional Manager v. Jyotiba Appaji Shigate & Ors., reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3908, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that a learner’s licence to ride a motorcycle is a valid and effective licence under the law and that the absence of an instructor does not constitute a breach of policy conditions. Similarly, in Mandar Madhav Tambe v. M. N. V. Insurance Co. Ltd. and Sheela Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that a learner’s licence is a valid licence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 14 1988. Hence, the respondent No. 2, possessing a valid learner’s licence at the time of the accident, cannot be said to have violated the policy terms. Accordingly, there was no breach of conditions, and the insurer cannot evade its statutory liability on this ground. 10. The learned Claims Tribunal, after analyzing the evidence, rightly fastened liability on the insurance company. The reasoning is clear, if the insurer genuinely believed the cover note was forged, it ought to have filed a criminal complaint against the owner or the agent concerned. The failure to do so indicates that the insurance policy was indeed valid and subsisting at the material time. The Tribunal has also correctly observed that the attempt made by insurer to deny liability was an afterthought, introduced only to defeat the rightful claim of the dependents of the deceased. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal that the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured and pay compensation is well- reasoned and in consonance with the law. The burden of proof to establish any policy violation, fake insurance cover, or invalid licence rests entirely upon the insurer, as per the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors., reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 and in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru & Ors., reported in (2003) 3 SCC 338. In both these authoritative pronouncements, it was categorically held that the insurer must produce cogent and convincing evidence of breach before being exonerated. In the present case, the appellant failed to discharge that burden. The evidence of its own witnesses contradicts its pleadings, and the alleged theft of the cover note was reported long after the insurance issuance. Therefore, the findings of Tribunal are in complete consonance with established 15 judicial principles. In light of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant / insurance company as being devoid of merits, affirm the judgment and award dated 06.01.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and direct the appellant / insurance company to satisfy the award amount along with interest as directed by the Tribunal. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 12. The first and foremost issue that arises for determination is whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, and whether the Tribunal erred in holding him solely responsible. The FIR, spot map, mechanical inspection report, and the oral testimony of witnesses have been examined. The evidence demonstrates that the offending motorcycle came from behind and struck the motorcycle of deceased. The impact, as per the site map and medical report, occurred on the rear portion of the vehicle on which the deceased was riding, thereby indicating that the offending motorcycle was being driven at an excessive speed and without maintaining a safe distance. It is a settled presumption in law that when one vehicle collides with another from behind, negligence is prima facie attributable to the driver of the rear vehicle, unless rebutted by cogent proof. 13. The above presumption flows from the principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors., reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530, wherein it was stated that strict rules of evidence do not apply to claim cases, and the Tribunal can decide based on the 16 preponderance of probabilities and has held thus : “15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties.” 14. In the present case, the insurer has failed to produce any evidence rebutting the presumption of negligence. There was no contrary witness, no alternative version of events, and no mechanical defect pleaded. Hence, the finding of the learned Tribunal that respondent No. 2 was driving rashly and negligently stands fully corroborated by the evidence and requires no interference. Further, the learned counsel for appellant has argued that the accident was a case of contributory negligence between the two drivers. However, this contention is not borne out from the record. 15. In the matter of T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan & Ors., reported in (2008) 3 SCC 748, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that composite negligence and contributory negligence are distinct. Contributory negligence arises where the injured or deceased person also contributes to the accident by his own negligence, whereas composite negligence involves negligence of multiple tortfeasors acting independently and has held as under : “5. The Tribunal assumed that the extent of negligence of the appellant and the first 17 respondent is 50 : 50 because it was 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 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 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 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 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 18 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.” 16. The evidence in the present case indicates that the deceased was merely a pillion rider and had no role in the driving of the vehicle. Thus, she cannot, in law, be attributed any contributory negligence. Even if the driver of her motorcycle had some fault, the right of claimant to recover compensation against the negligent driver of the offending vehicle remains unaffected. 17. The above principle was reiterated in the matter of Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2015) 9 SCC 273, where the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in a case of joint or composite 19 negligence, the liability of all tortfeasors is joint and several, and the claimant may recover the entire compensation from any one of them. Relevant paragraph is quoted hereunder : “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.” 18. Hence, from the above, even assuming minor fault of the other driver, the claim remains maintainable against the insurer of the offending vehicle. Consequently, the argument of contributory negligence stands rejected as misconceived. The next contention made by learned counsel for appellant is that the owner, driver, and insurer of the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling (CG-04-DD-4396) were not made parties, and therefore, the petition was not maintainable. The Tribunal, while rejecting this argument, has correctly relied upon settled principles of law. 19. The liability being joint and several, the claimant has the option to sue any or all of the negligent parties. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in holding that non-joinder was not fatal to the claim petition. The claimant was entitled to proceed against the owner, driver, and insurer of the motorcycle which directly caused the accident. 20. Further, the principal ground raised by learned counsel for appellant is that the cover note bearing No. 80556 was forged and not issued by 20 the company. This argument was examined in detail by the Tribunal, which found that the own evidence of insurer lacked consistency. It is an admitted fact that the insurance policy in question was in the standard format of company and bore proper identification details. The complaint regarding the missing cover note book was lodged only on 16.09.2009, i.e., nearly two months after the alleged issuance of cover note date (12.07.2009) and one month after the accident. This delayed reporting casts serious doubt on the plea of insurer. The insurer also failed to initiate any criminal action or departmental enquiry regarding the alleged misuse of cover notes. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh (supra), the burden of proving breach of policy conditions lies entirely on the insurer and has held as under : “110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is as follows: (i) xxx (ii) xxx (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.” 21 21. Further, in the matter of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kunjlata & Ors., passed in MAC No. 1472/2017 vide order dated 30.08.2024, this Court held that unless forgery is proved through cogent documentary evidence or criminal findings, an insurer cannot disown liability. Relevant paragraph is quoted below : “14. The main grievance of the appellant/Insurance Company is that said cover note Ex.D4 was not issued by the Insurance company, and the same is fake. Though they have examined witness-1 of NA5 Admin Gardiya, who stated in his evidence that the said cover note Ex.D4 was not issued from their Office but he has admitted in his cross-examination that despite having knowledge of the cover note Ex.D4, they have not taken any action against any person. Even they have not made any complaint to anywhere. The said premium collection sheet does not show as to from where it has been issued as there is no mention of place from where the same is issued. The Insurance Company ought to have produced clinching and cogent evidence about the details of premium collection sheet from Pune Office of the Insurance Company, because the seal of Pune office of the Insurance Company is endorsed in the said cover note Ex.D4. It was required for the Insurance Company to produce the witness from its Office at Pune with respect to the said cover note, and also to produce the relevant record from there to prove that it was never allotted to the Pune Office from the Head Office. Even there is no evidence led by the Insurance company with respect to the Agency code R-867090, that the cover note was not allotted to the said agency. The specimen cover note was of the year 2015, and the notification has also not been produced as to from which date, the hologram is affixing in the cover note, or without hologram, is affixing 22 in the cover note or without hologram, no cover note is to be issued by the Company. To revert a document that it is a forged one, something more is required by the Insurance Company by leading clinching and cogent evidence but it could not discharge its burden to prove the fact that the cover note Ex.D4 is a fake one, and has not been issued from the Insurance Company. 15. Learned Claims Tribunal while deciding the issue-4 came to conclusion that in absence of any cogent evidence, it cannot be said that Ex.D4, cover note is a forged one. This Court is also in agreement with the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the Insurance Company could not able to prove that the cover note Ex.D4 is fake one, and affirm the finding recorded by the learned claims Tribunal with respect to Issue-4, decided in the impugned award.” 22. The own witnesses of Company gave contradictory statements; D.W.-1 admitted that as on the date of policy issuance, the cover note was not missing. Hence, the Tribunal rightly held the insurance valid and subsisting. The learned counsel for appellant / insurer next contended that the driver possessed only a learner’s licence and hence violated policy terms. However, this submission reflects a misunderstanding of the legal position. As per Rule 3 and Rule 24(3)(v) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, a holder of a learner’s licence for a motorcycle is not required to be accompanied by an instructor, unlike in the case of cars or heavy vehicles. Therefore, a learner’s licence is a valid and effective licence for riding motorcycles. 23. The High Court fo Karnataka in the matter of Senior Divisional Manager v. Jyotiba Appaji Shigate & Ors., reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3908 reaffirmed that for two-wheelers, the absence of an 23 instructor does not invalidate a learner’s licence and has held as under : “22. On bare reading of Rule 24(3)(v) of the Rules clearly provides that the instructor shall accompany with the learner while driving the motor vehicles having dual control facility to enable the instructor to control or stop the vehicle, whereas the motorcycle was excluded or exempted and it does not require the instructor to be accompanied. However, Section 3 of the Act defines necessity of driving licence. Proviso to Rule 3 enables the rider of the motorcycle shall not carry any other person on the motorcycle as pillion rider except for the purpose and in the manner referred to in clause (b), which shows the person holding driving licence shall be accompanied with a person who holds a learner's licence for the motor vehicle but not motorcycle. 26. On the other hand, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Hon'ble High Courts in the case of Mandar Madhav Tambe (stated supra), Mahamooda (stated supra), Sheela Devi (stated supra) and Shivapal Singa (stated supra) the licence held by respondent 1, even though it was a learner's licence, but it is a valid licence. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Even the Central Motor Vehicles Rules strictly contemplates accompanying of an instructor in a motor vehicle, but excludes the motorcycle. Therefore, I hold that a learner's licence is also a valid licence, the rider or the learner need not accompany any instructor for motorcycle, as required in case of four wheeler motor vehicle, which require instructor. Therefore, the contention taken up by the insurer that the respondent 1 was not holding a valid driving licence and she was holding only learner's licence to ride a motorcycle on the road, cannot be 24 accepted. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has rightly concluded that the learner's licence held by respondent 1 is a valid licence and has rightly fastened the liability on the insurer. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal regarding fastening of liability on the insurer does not call for any interference of this Court. Hence, I answer Point No. 1 in favour of the claimant and against the insurer.” 24. Thus, from the above legal precedents, it is crystal clear there is no breach of policy in the present case. Accordingly, the finding of Tribunal that the driver was duly licensed under the law stands affirmed. 25. Turning to the computation of compensation, the Tribunal took the monthly income of deceased as Rs. 4,000/- in absence of documentary evidence. Considering the year of accident (2009) and the age of deceased i.e. 47 years, this assessment is reasonable and consistent with the notional income parameters recognized in the matter of Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 197 and Sarla Verma v. DTC, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 26. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 13, which is correct for the 46–50 years age group as per Sarla Verma (supra). One-third deduction for personal expenses is also appropriate since the deceased was married. The total dependency was rightly computed at Rs. 6,32,000/-, with additional amounts of Rs. 25,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 3,000/- for funeral expenses, aggregating to Rs. 6,60,000/-. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 emphasized that compensation must be “just, equitable, and reasonable”, not fanciful. 25 The Tribunal’s award meets this standard and cannot be termed excessive or arbitrary. Having found that the policy was valid, the driver duly licensed, and no breach of condition proved, the insurer cannot escape liability. As per Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the liability of insurer to third parties is statutory and cannot be avoided unless a willful breach is established. 27. Upon careful consideration of all facts, evidence, and legal principles, this Court finds that the award dated 06.01.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal is just, reasoned, and in consonance with established law. There is no perversity, illegality, or misappreciation warranting appellate interference. The finding on rash and negligent driving, validity of licence and policy, computation of compensation, and fastening of liability are all upheld. 28. Consequently, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 29. The award of Rs. 6,60,000/- together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization is affirmed in toto. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire awarded amount before the learned Tribunal within one month from receipt of this judgment. Upon deposit, the Tribunal shall release the amount to the claimant(s) in accordance with the apportionment and disbursement directions in the award. No order as to costs Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge