MV Act | Tripling On Two-Wheeler Doesn't Amount To Contributory Negligence Without Evidence: Gujarat High Court

Modifying an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the Gujarat High Court observed that merely triple riding on a two-wheeler, in absence of any evidence or a casual connection between the violation and the accident, would not amount to contributory negligence.

The kin of the deceased argued that the deceased Mayurbhai Jesinghbhai Dhuda along with his sister Sejalben and niece Bhavnaben were proceeding on motorcycle when a bus came from the opposite side in full speed and dashed the motorcycle. Mayurbhai and Sejalben sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to it, whereas, Bhavnaben sustained injuries.

The appellants –claimants being legal heirs of the deceased moved a plea before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation, which had partly allowed the claim ruling that there was 10% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

The Tribunal had fastened the liability of motorcyclist on the ground that he was riding motorcycle along with two pillion riders–in total three persons were riding on the motorcycle. The appellants argued that this is not a ground to automatically consider contributory negligence in absence of any proof and that merely, tripling ride on two-wheeler is not a ground to saddle liability of negligence.

Perusing the evidence, Justice Hasmukh D Suthar in his order observed:

"If we peruse the evidence on record it appears that the chargesheet is filed against the driver of the bus and in cross examination of the driver of the bus it appears that due to handcart of watermelon he drove the bus in the said and from the opposite side motorcycle was coming and both vehicles were collided and the accident occurred. In absence of any material proving contributory negligence of the deceased merely the deceased was riding tripling is not a ground to hold the deceased negligent. The contributory negligence cannot be presumed and collision on the road did not inherently indicate the negligence by the driver but negligence must be proved by the evidence with preponderance of probabilities as standard".

Referring to various Supreme Court judgments the court said that riding the motorcycle is itself not enough, without any evidence, to hold the deceased liable for contributory negligence; there must either be a causal connection between the violation and the accident or a causal connection between the violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim.

The high court then said:

"Merely tripling ride is not a ground in absence of such tripling has caused or contributed the alleged accident and due to such tripling the motorcyclist had lost the control over steering of the motorcycle or due to rash and negligent driving he has contributed the alleged accident. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts in absence of any material or evidence or causal connection between the violation and the accident such type of presumption is not permissible. Accordingly, the Tribunal has committed error in holding 10% contributory negligence of the deceased".

The court thus modified the Tribunal's order with respect to 10% contributory negligence by the deceased and held the driver of the bus as "solely negligent in occurrence of the accident".

The court also enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.12,51,720 (after deducting 10% own negligence), to Rs.14,93,900 which included compensation for Loss of consortium.

"The respondent – GSRTC shall deposit the said additional amount of Rs.2,42,180/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order," the court directed.

The appeal was partly allowed.

Case title: LEGAL HEIRS AND DEPENDENTS OF DECD. MAYURBHAI JESINGBHAI DHUDA MINABEN JESINGBHAI DHUDA & ANR. v/s GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 621 of 2022 and connected appeal

Click Here To Read/Download Order