Motor Accident | Pillion Rider's Compensation Can't Be Reduced Due To Rider's Contributory Negligence: Kerala High Court

Justice Anil K. Narendran rendered the finding in an appeal filed by a pillion rider challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award in an accident involving a two-wheeler and a stage carriage.

“the appellant-claimant, being a third-party pillion rider on the two-wheeler, cannot be held to be responsible or having contributed to the accident. In such circumstances, the appellant-claimant is entitled to recover the entire compensation from any one of the tortfeasors, and there is no legal warrant for reducing the award on account of apportionment of negligence between the driver of the stage carriage and the rider of the two- wheeler,” the Court held.

The claimant/appellant was a pillion rider in a two-wheeler when it was hit by a stage carriage. He approached the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs arraying the owner, driver and insurer of the carriage as respondents. The rider of the two-wheeler in which he was travelling was not made a party.

The owner and the driver of the carriage denied negligence whereas its insurer did not appear before the Tribunal. No oral evidence was adduced in the case but some documentary evidence was produced by the pillion rider.

The Tribunal went on to affix 50% contributory negligence on the rider of the two-wheeler and reduced the compensation by 50%, from Rs. 57,922 to Rs. 28,961. Aggrieved, the pillion rider approached the High Court.

The appellant/claimant argued that deduction of award for contributory negligence of rider was legally unsustainable. The insurer contended that the award must not be enhanced since the Tribunal's reduction of the award for contributory negligence was correct.

The Court adverted to the facts of the case and noted that the Tribunal referred to the FIR and the chargesheet against the carriage driver as well as the wound certificate to confirm the accident.

Further, the Court noticed that the Tribunal concluded that there was contributory negligence on the part of the two-wheeler rider by relying on the scene mahazar and the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector's inspection report of the carriage.

The Court agreed that the chargesheet was prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the carriage driver. However, it was of the opinion that the Tribunal was wrong in finding that the two-wheeler rider was negligent in the absence of any chargesheet against him or oral evidence by the respondents (owner, rider and insurer of carriage).

Placing reliance on Apex Court's judgment in Yashwant Krishna Kumbar v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2025) on contributory negligence, the Court opined:

“contributory negligence cannot be inferred vicariously from the conduct of the rider of two-wheeler on which the appellant-claimant was travelling as a pillion rider. The principle of contributory negligence mandates a specific inquiry into the conduct of the appellant-claimant, who is the injured person, and as to how he has contributed to the accident by any negligence on his part.”

It then clarified that even if the two-wheeler driver can be found to be negligent, the pillion rider would not be liable and therefore, his award cannot be reduced.

Next, looking at the compensation under the other heads, the Court was of the opinion that Tribunal's fixation of notional income as Rs. 3500 was not correct even if the claimant did not adduce any oral evidence to substantiate his claim of monthly income of Rs. 5000 as a welder. It then re-fixed the same to Rs. 4500. The Court also enhanced the sums awarded under other heads.

The Court was of the view that the period from date of dismissal of the claim for default till the date of restoration of the same cannot be included for the purpose of interest. It relied on the Supreme Court decision in New India Assurance Company Ltd.v. Hansaben Sureshbhai Prajapati (2025). Thus, it set aside the Tribunal's finding that the appellant/claimant was entitled to interest from the date of restoration alone.

The Court, thus, granted an additional compensation of Rs. 45,389 along with 8% interest from the date of claim petition till date of award excluding the aforementioned period from dismissal till restoration.

Case No: MACA No.947 of 2011

Case Title: Santhosh v. E.A. Sainaba and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 403

Counsel for the appellant: Cherian Sebastian, M. James Antony

Counsel for the respondents: N.S. Najeeb

Click to Read/Download Judgment