Does carrying two pillion riders on motorcycle establish contributory negligence? Kerala High Court answers

Justice Jobin Sebastian was hearing an appeal filed by a man who suffered injuries in a road accident.

“Evidently, the motorcycle was carrying two pillion riders at the time of the accident. The mere fact of carrying more than one pillion rider, though a violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, cannot, by itself, give rise to a presumption of contributory negligence,” the court held.

It further added that without any evidence showing that the presence of two pillion riders contributed to or caused the accident, no deduction on the ground of contributory negligence can be made.

Background

• According to the claimant, the accident occurred when a jeep, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit his motorcycle at Kattukkaran Junction.
• It was alleged that due to the impact, the petitioner as well as the pillion riders were thrown onto the road and sustained serious injuries.
• The tribunal had found the jeep driver primarily responsible for the accident but attributed contributory negligence of 20 per cent to the motorcyclist for violating the Motor Vehicles Act by carrying more than one pillion rider.
• The total compensation was quantified at Rs 1,84,800 with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of petition till realization, along with proportionate costs.
• After deducting 20 per cent towards contributory negligence, the petitioner was held entitled to Rs 1,47,840.

Findings

• The medical records reveal that the petitioner suffered a fracture of both bones in the right leg, along with multiple abrasions and lacerated wounds. Considering the nature of the injuries, the assessment of 13 per cent permanent disability is reasonable and acceptable.
• Considering the nature of the injuries and the pain and suffering endured by the petitioner, an additional compensation of Rs 35,000 is to be awarded under the head of pain and sufferings.
• The injuries and prolonged treatment have undoubtedly affected the petitioner’s enjoyment of life. Considering the inconvenience and hardship suffered, an additional amount of Rs 35,000 is awarded under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life.
• The petitioner was aged 22 years at the time of the accident, and as per the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the appropriate multiplier is 18. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to Rs 2.24 lakh under the head of permanent disability.
• Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs 91,800 under this head, the petitioner is entitled to an additional amount of Rs 1.32 lakh.
• The petitioner underwent 15 days of inpatient treatment and sustained serious injuries. In such circumstances, it is reasonable to hold that the petitioner would have been unable to work for at least eight months.
• Accordingly, he is entitled to get an amount of Rs 64,000 under the head of loss of earnings.
• In the absence of any material showing that the presence of two pillion riders contributed to or caused the accident, no deduction on the ground of contributory negligence can be made, and compensation cannot be reduced on a mechanical or hypothetical basis.
• Finding of contributory negligence entered by the Tribunal against the petitioner is arbitrary and unsupported by any evidence.
• The compensation is enhanced by Rs 2.39 lakh with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit.