1 2026:CGHC:15743 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 416 of 2020 Punuram Sahu S/o Late Shri Dhiraji Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Nawagaon, P. S. And Post Bori, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Maniram Sahu S/o Punuram Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Nawagaon, P. S. And Post Bori, District Durg Chhattisgarh .......................Driver And Owner, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Branch Manager Branch Office, Tata Aig Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor Shivarpan 18/14 South Gangotri, Supela, G. E. Road, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh ...............Insurer, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. PR Patankar, Advocate For Respondent-2 : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 07.04.2026 1. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) the appellant-claimant is challenging impugned order dt. 01.11.2019, whereby the claim application filed by the claimant has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that present is a 2 case of “composite negligence” and not that of “contributory negligence” and, therefore, in light of decision of the Supreme Court in TO Anthony v. Karvarnan and others 1 , the present appeal is liable to be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order and prays for dismissal of this appeal. 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. The Supreme Court in the matter of TO Anthony (supra) while outlining the distinction between the cases of “Contributory Negligence” and “Composite Negligence” observed 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 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 1 (2008) 3 SCC 748 3 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. [emphasis supplied]” 6. Admittedly, in the present, the appellant/claimant was sitting as pillion rider in one of the two motor-cycle, which was owned and driven by respondent No.01- Maniram Sahu and was also involved in the accident in question, therefore, in view of the dicta of TO Anthony (supra) the present would be a case of “composite negligence” and not of “contributory negligence”. The learned claims tribunal is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the claim of the claimant, as the claimant had the choice of claiming the entire amount of compensation from the owner, driver and insurer of the any of the two vehicles. Since, in the present case, the claimant have opted to claim compensation from the insurer, driver and owner of the Motor Cycle bearing No.CG-07-AC-0285, the respondents herein being the owner, driver and insurer are liable to pay 4 the entire amount of compensation to the claimant, which is to be assessed by the learned claims tribunal after recording of additional evidence, if any. 7. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dt. 01.11.2019 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Claims Tribunal for assessment of compensation to be paid to the claimant by the respondents herein in accordance with law by recording additional evidence, if any, within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The parties are directed to appear before the claims tribunal on 22.04.2026 for the said purpose. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No cost. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if