(MAC No.1099/2022) 2025:CGHC:60342 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1099 of 2022 {Arising out of award dated 13-5-2022 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund in Claim Case No.H-45/2021} 1. Churawan Chandrakar, S/o Ramji Chandrakar, aged about 49 years, 2. Smt. Kesri Bai Chandrakar, W/o Churawan Chandrakar, aged about 34 years, 3. Vikas Chandrakar, S/o Churawan Chandrakar, aged about 20 years, All above are R/o Village Bhalesar, Police Station Komakhan, Tehsil Bagbahra, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) ... Appellants versus 1. Omprakash Chandrakar, S/o Shri Purushottam Chandrakar, aged about 26 years, R/o Village Bhalesar, Police Station Komakhan, Tehsil Bagbahra, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Driver of vehicle bearing No.CG-06/Q-5822) 2. Tata A.I.G. Insurance, Office First Floor 106-7, Wallfort Ozone Bilaspur Road, Fafadih Chowk, Raipur – 492001, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of vehicle bearing No.CG-06/Q-5822) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.12.12 17:36:53 +0530 (MAC No.1099/2022) Judgment on Board 11/12/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants herein/claimants calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 13-5-2022 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund in Claim Case No.H-45/2021, by which their claim petition has been dismissed finding no merit. 2. Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants herein/claimants, would submit that it is a case of composite negligence, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application for compensation. 3. Mr. Saurabh Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 herein/Insurance Company, would support the impugned award and oppose the appeal and submit that the Claims Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition filed by the appellants herein/claimants, 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 gone 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 deceased Ashish Chandrakar was sitting as a pillion rider on the (MAC No.1099/2022) motorcycle which was being driven by respondent No.1 herein, 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 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 1 (2008) 3 SCC 748 (MAC No.1099/2022) contributory negligence. The High Court has failed to correct the said error.” 7. Thus, since this is a case of composite negligence, the appellants herein/claimants had the choice of proceeding against single or both the drivers and as such, the claim application filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 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. Parties will appear before the Claims Tribunal on 6-1-2026. The Claims Tribunal shall decide the claim petition expeditiously, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of finally with the aforesaid observation and direction. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge