Extra Pillion Rider On A Motor Cycle Is Liable For Contributory Negligence Towards Accident: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court held that an extra pillion rider on a motor cycle is liable for contributory negligence towards the accident.
The Court held thus in a miscellaneous first appeal filed by ICICI Lombard Company Ltd. (Insurance Company) against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), questioning the quantum of compensation and contending that the claimant also contributed her negligence towards the accident.
A Single Bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar observed, “Admittedly, from the police records, it is revealed that there were four persons riding on the motor cycle. The claimant is one of the pillion rider. Hence, the claimant knowing fully well that there were four persons riding on the motor cycle, hence invited risk for herself while travelling on the motor cycle being pillion rider. Therefore, the claimant has also contributed her negligence towards the accident in the manner discussed above. Therefore, it is amounting to 20% of contributory negligence towards the accident.”
The Bench added that, whatever amount of compensation is determined by it, the claimant is entitled to only 80% of that determined compensation amount.
Advocate B.C. Shivanne Gowda appeared for the appellant while Advocate D.S. Sridhar appeared for the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The question before the court was whether the claimant contributed her negligence towards the accident and whether the claimant was entitled for compensation towards loss of future income due to disability. The counsel for the appellant submitted that it is the case of self-fall from bike while the claimant was riding the motor cycle, hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner and to pay compensation. Further it was also submitted that even if the claimant is held to be pillion rider, there were three persons riding on the motor cycle.
It was argued that the motor cycle skidded and thus, the claimant knowing fully well that there were three persons riding on the motor cycle invited the risk for herself amounting to contributory negligence. On the other hand, the counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant was a pillion rider and hence, the claim petition was maintainable. Further it was contended that, just because, there were three pillion riders on the motor cycle is not a ground to say that the claimant also contributed negligence towards the accident.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case said, “The Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.1,72,800/- towards loss of future income due to disability. The claimant was working as a Customer Relation Officer at Hinduja Global Solutions Limited and she is continuing in the same job even after the accident.”
The Court further noted that there is no evidence that the claimant was terminated from service due to disability and hence, no compensation can be granted towards loss of future earnings due to disability because the claimant continued in the same job with the same salary.
“Therefore, the claimant is not entitled for compensation towards loss of future earning due to disability, but the claimant is entitled for compensation towards loss of amenities. Accordingly, compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the head loss of amenities. On all other conventional heads, compensation amount granted is found to be just and proper. The claimant has not preferred any appeal, therefore, insofar as quantum of compensation towards loss of future earning due to disability is set aside. Insofar as other conventional heads is concerned, the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal is kept in tact”, it held.
The Court concluded that the claimant has contributed 20% of negligence towards the accident and is entitled to only 80% of the determined compensation. It said that the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 3,31,383/- (80% of Rs. 4,14,229/-) as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with an interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the judgment of MACT.
Cause Title- M/s ICICI Lombard Company Ltd. v. Harshitha B & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:64)
