Motor Accident Claims | Carrying Two Pillion Riders On Motorcycle Doesn't Establish Contributory Negligence: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently clarified that contributory negligence cannot be attributed on a victim of a motor accident merely because he was carrying two pillion riders on the motorcycle.

Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that the insurer must bring in evidence showing that the act of carrying two pillion riders had a direct and proximate cause, connecting it with the accident.

Relying on Mohammed Siddique and Another v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, the Court observed:

“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. For contributory negligence to be fastened, it must be established by reliable and cogent evidence that the act of carrying two pillion riders had a direct and proximate cause connection with the accident, such as impairing the control, balance, or maneuverability of the vehicle. The burden of proving such contributory negligence lies on the insurer…”

The appeal before the Court was preferred by a victim of a motor accident seeking to enhance the compensation granted by the Tribunal. According to him, a jeep driven in a rash and negligent manner hit him while he was riding his motor cycle and as a result, he suffered injuries.

The tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred mainly due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep and therefore, the insurer was liable to pay. However, it also found the claimant/appellant to be guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 20%. It awarded compensation of Rs. 1,84,800/- and deducted 20% to finally award Rs. 1,47,840/-.

The Tribunal also reduced the disability to 10% even though the appellant had produced a doctor-issued disability certificate showing his permanent disability as 13%.

In appeal, it was contended that the Tribunal erred in correctly assessing the income of the appellant, failed to properly appreciate the injuries, pain and suffering undergone. It was also argued that contributory negligence ought not have been fastened merely because he was carrying two pillion riders.

The Court noted that the Tribunal had assigned Rs. 4500 as the monthly income even though it was claimed that Rs. 7500 was his monthly earnings as a welder, but unsupported by an oral or documentary evidence.

However, since the accident occurred in the year 2011, the Court was of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have assessed notional monthly income as Rs. 8,000/- in light of the Supreme Court decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236].

The Court also opined that the Tribunal ought not to have arbitrarily reduced the disability percentage merely because it doubted its correctness and that the appropriate course that should have been adopted was to refer the appellant to a Medical Board for reassessment.

Applying the multiplier of 18 since the appellant was 22 years old and taking notional income as Rs. 8,000, the Court held that he was entitled to Rs. 2,24,640/-.

It also enhanced the compensation under the head 'loss of earnings'. Since the appellant underwent inpatient treatment for 15 days, the Court felt it reasonable to hold that he would not have been able to work for at least 8 months.

The Court also awarded additional compensation of Rs. 35,000/- under the head of pain and sufferings even though only Rs. 3500 was claimed.

“it is well settled that strict rules of pleadings are not applicable in motor accident claims. The provision contained under the Motor Vehicles Act for the grant of compensation is beneficial legislation, and it is the duty of the Tribunal and the Court to award just and reasonable compensation, even exceeding the amount claimed, if circumstances so warrant,” the Court reasoned.

Regarding the contributory negligence aspect, the Court took note of the fact that insurer did not discharge its burden to prove the same. Moreover, since the driver of the jeep was booked by the police for driving in a negligent manner and endangering the life of others, the Court felt that negligence is on the jeep driver.

Thus, the Court allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation awarded.

Case No: MACA No. 1962 of 2020

Case Title: Bineesh v. Mathew Joseph and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 34

Counsel for the appellant: A.R. Nimod, M.A. Augustine

Counsel for the respondents: P.K. Manojkumar - United India Insurance Co.

Click to Read/Download Judgment