whether it is open to a claimant to recover entire compensation from one of the joint tort feasors, particularly when in accident caused by composite negligence of drivers of trailor-truck and bus has been found to 2/3rd and 1/3rd extent respectively. Apex court held that (i) In the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several. (ii) In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tort feasors vis a vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them. (iii) In case all the joint 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 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 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. (iv) 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, 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. Resultantly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside. Parties to bear the costs as incurred.- 2015 S.C.MSKLAWREPORTS

whether it  is  open  to  a  claimant  to  recover  entire
compensation from one of  the  joint  tort  feasors,  particularly  when  in
accident caused by composite negligence of drivers of trailor-truck and  bus
has been found to 2/3rd and 1/3rd extent respectively.
 Apex court held that
(i)   In the case of composite negligence,  plaintiff/claimant  is  entitled
to sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to recover  the  entire
compensation as liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several.
(ii)  In the case of composite  negligence,  apportionment  of  compensation
between  two  tort  feasors  vis  a  vis  the  plaintiff/claimant   is   not
permissible.  He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them.
(iii) In case all the joint 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  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
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.
(iv)  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,
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.

Resultantly, the appeals are allowed.  The  judgment  and  order
passed by the High Court is hereby set aside. Parties to bear the  costs  as
incurred.- 2015 S.C.MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS