Bombay High Court upholds Rs 1.3 crore compensation awarded to road accident victim, rejects no helmet argument

It further observed that the alleged non-wearing of a helmet had no bearing on the cause of the accident.

“Considering the evidence on record, i.e. the fact that the Qualis vehicle was much larger, it was being driven at great speed, and the accident occurred when the Qualis was trying to overtake another vehicle by going to the extreme wrong side of the road, the helmet, possibly, would have made no difference,” the court said.

Case

The accident occurred on January 17, 2021, on the Saligao–Calangute road when the victim, riding an Activa scooter, was hit by a car. The victim succumbed to the injuries, following which his mother approached the MACT seeking compensation.

Challenging the award, the insurance company argued that the Tribunal had wrongly held the driver of the Qualis responsible for the accident. It contended that the victim himself was negligent, claiming that he had entered the main road from a side road in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the insured vehicle.

It was further argued that the victim was not even wearing a helmet at the time of the accident, which the tribunal failed to consider.

The appellant company submitted that it was a case of contributory negligence and sought reduction in compensation while also disputing the victim’s employment and income.

Findings

Rejecting the insurance company’s submissions, the court noted that two eyewitnesses had given a “graphic account” of the accident, stating that the car was being driven at a “high speed” and while overtaking another vehicle collided with the scooty driven by the victim.

The court observed that this evidence clearly established rash and negligent driving on the part of the Qualis driver.

The court further observed that the compensation calculated by the tribunal was based upon the documentary evidence available on record in the form of the victim’s salary.

The court, therefore, held, “no case is made out to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Award.”

The court dismissed the appeal and allowed the claimant to withdraw the remaining compensation amount along with accrued interest.