KHENYEI versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 5 S.C.R. 158 · Decided: 07-05-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
(2015] 5 S.C.R. 158 
KHENYEI 
v. 
NEW INDIAASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4244of2015 etc.) 
MAYO?, 2015. 
[H.L.DATTU, CJI., S.A. BOBDE AND ARUN MISHRA,JJ.] 
·Torts - Composite negligence - Injuries caused by 
combined wrongful act of joint tort-feasors - Liability to pay 
compensation - Held: In such cases, the liability is joint and 
several - The claimant has the right to recover the entire 
o amount from the easiest target/solvent defendant -
Apportionment of compensation between the tort-feasors by 
determining their extent of negligence vis-a-vis the claimant 
is not permissible - Determination of the extent of their 
negligence is only for the purpose of their inter-se liability. 
E 
F 
Negligence - Contn"butory negligence and composite 
negligence- Difference between. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In a case of accident caused by 
negligence of joint tort-feasors, all the persons who aid 
or counsel or direct or join in committal of a wrongful 
act, are liable. In such case, the liability is always joint 
G and several. The extent of negligence of joint tort-feasors 
in such a case is immaterial for satisfaction of the claim 
of the plaintiff/claimant and need not be determined by 
the court. The liability of each and every joint tort-feasor 
vis-a-vis the plaintiff/claimant cannot be bifurcated as it 
H is joint and several liability. In the case of composite 
158 
KHENYEI v. NEW INDIAASSURANCE CO. LTD. 
159 
negligence, apportionment of compensation between A 
tort feasors for making payment to the plaintiff is not 
permissible as the plaintiff/claimant has the right to 
recover the entire amount from the easiest targets/ 
solvent defendant. [Para 4] [163-G-H; 164-A-C] 
B 
1.2 In case all the joitlt tort-feasors have been 
impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the 
court/tribunal to determine inter-se extent of composite 
negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the 
extent of negligence between the joint tort-feasors is only C 
for the purpose of their inter-se liability so that one may 
recover the sum from the other after making whole of 
payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has 
satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them 0 
have been impleaded and the apportionment/ extent of 
their negligence has been determined by the court/ 
tribunal, in main case, one joint tort-feasor can recover 
the amount from the other in the execution proceedings. 
[Para 18] 178-G-H; 179-A-B] 
E 
1.3 It would not be appropriate for the court/ 
tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence 
of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of 
impleadment of other joint tort-feasors. In such a case, 
F 
impleaded joint tort-feasor should be left, in case he so 
desires, to sue the other joint tort- feasor in independent 
proceedings after passing of the decree or award. [Para 
18) [179-C] 
1.4 In the instant case, there is determination of G 
inter-se liability of composite negligence to the extent of 
negligence of 2/3rd and 1/3rd of respective drivers. Thus, 
the vehicle -trailor-truck which was not insured with the 
insurer, was negligent to the extent of 2/3rd. It would be H 
160 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 5 S.C.R. 
A open to the insurer bf:ing insurer of the bus after making 
payment to claimant to recover from the owner of the 
trailor-truck the amount to the aforesaid extent in the 
execution proceedings. Had there been no 
determination of the inter-se liability for want of evidence 
B or other joint tort-feasor had not been impleaded, n: was 
not open to settle such a dispute and to recover the 
amount in execution proceedings, but the remedy would 
be to file another suit or apopriate proceedings in 
C accordance with law. [Para 18] [178-B-D] 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
l\lational Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma 
& Ors. 2004 (8) SCC 517: 2004 (4) Suppl. 
SCR 587; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan 
& Ors. 2004 (13) sec 224: 2004 (2) SCR 365 -
relied on. 
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, 
Bangalore and etc. v. Arun a/iasAravind and etc. etc. 
AIR 2004 Kar. 149; Smt. Sushi/a Bhadoriya & Ors. 
v. M.P State Road Transport Corpn. &Anr. 2005 (1) 
MPLJ 372 - approved. 
Pa/ghat Coimbatore Transport Co. Ltd. v. Narayanan 
ILR (1939) Mad. 306; National Insurance Co. Ltd. 
v. PA. Vergis & Ors. 1991(1)ACC226; United India 
Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Varghese & Ors. 1989 2 
ACC 483= 1989 ACJ 472; United India Fire
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.