SC: Under RTE Act, States Cannot Justify Low Teacher Pay by Citing Centre’s Failure to Release Funds  ||  Supreme Court: While a Child’s Welfare is Paramount, It is Not the Sole Factor in Custody Disputes  ||  Supreme Court: High Court Cannot Reject a Plaint While Exercising Jurisdiction under Article 227  ||  SC: Merely Leasing an Apartment Does Not Bar a Flat Buyer’s Consumer Complaint Against the Builder  ||  Delhi HC: Unproven Adultery Allegations Cannot be Used to Deny Interim Maintenance under the DV Act  ||  Bombay HC: Storing Items in a Fridge isn’t Manufacturing and Doesn’t Make Premises a Factory  ||  Kerala HC: Disability Pension is Not Payable if the Condition is Unrelated to Military Service  ||  Supreme Court: Award Valid Even If Passed After Mandate Expiry When Court Extends Time  ||  Jharkhand HC: Regular Bail Plea During Interim Bail is Not Maintainable under Section 483 BNSS  ||  Cal HC: Theft Claims and Public Humiliation Alone Don’t Amount To Abetment of Suicide U/S 306 IPC    

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munna Lal Agrawal and Ors. - (High Court of Allahabad) (17 Nov 2018)

In a case of composite negligence where liability is joint and several, it is choice of claimants to claim compensation from either of tortfeasor

MANU/UP/4238/2018

Motor Vehicles

Instant appeals arise out of the same accident. Tribunal fastened the entire liability upon the Insurance Company to pay compensation on the ground that, it was a case of composite negligence not a contributory negligence. Issue involved in present matter is regarding the sustainability of award passed by Tribunal.

The Tribunal was right in fastening entire liability upon the Insurance Company to pay compensation in the Claim Petition. It is settled in law that, in a case of composite negligence where the liability is joint and several, it is choice of the claimants to claim compensation from either of the tortfeasor. In the instant case, the claimant has chosen to claim compensation from the Mini Truck and as such there is no infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence.

The submissions of the counsel for the Appellant in respect of driving licence that, the driver of Truck was not authorized to drive transport vehicle, as he was driving a transport vehicle has no substance in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, wherein the Apex Court has held that ,if a light motor vehicle falls in the category of transport vehicle, to drive such a vehicle, no endorsement by the licensing authority on the driving licence authorizing him to drive transport vehicles is required. Thus, the submissions on the issue of driving licence are rejected. Appeals dismissed.

Relevant : Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited MANU/SC/0797/2017

Tags : NEGLIGENCE   COMPENSATION   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved