Failure To Wear Helmet Constitutes Contributory Negligence; But It Should Not Drastically Affect Motor Accident Compensation Awarded: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court held that though the failure to wear protective headgear (helmet) constitutes contributory negligence, it should not drastically affect the compensation awarded to the claimant.
The Court held thus in an appeal challenging the judgment and award of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and III Additional District and Sessions Judge.
A Division Bench of Justice K. Somashekar and Justice Chillakur Sumalatha observed, “It’s fair to conclude that while the failure to wear protective headgear as required by Section 129(a) constitutes contributory negligence, it should not drastically affect the compensation awarded to the claimant. The principle of just compensation necessitates that courts award damages that are fair and equitable, considering all circumstances without unduly penalizing the claimant for not wearing a helmet. The primary focus remains on ensuring that victims receive adequate compensation for their injuries and losses."
The Bench emphasised that while the failure to wear protective headgear as required by Section 129(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) constitutes contributory negligence, it should not drastically affect the compensation awarded to the claimant.
Advocate Raju S. appeared on behalf of the appellant while Advocate Pradeep B. appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Brief Facts -
In 2016, the claimant (appellant) being the rider of the motor cycle was riding the same on the National Highway. While he was proceeding in front of Jain Temple and Lotus Factory, a motor car owned by the respondent person and insured with the Insurance company, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant from behind. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained head injury and injuries to his back and waist portion. He was immediately taken to the hospital and he had to undergo medical surgeries therein.
The claimant had spent a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs towards his medical treatment and other incidental expenses. It was stated that he was having his own concern and working as a manufacturer of wooden toys and earning a sum of Rs. 35,000/- per month. Based on the materials on record, the Tribunal granted the compensation of Rs. 5,61,600/-. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred an appeal before the High Court by urging various grounds.
The High Court in view of the above facts noted, “In the case on hand, the concept regarding contributory negligence and compensation claims for not wearing protective headgear under Section 129(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988, the court notes several critical points. Section 129(a) mandates that all motorcycle riders must wear protective headgear that meets the standards set by the Bureau of Indian Standards, highlighting the importance of safety gear in preventing head injuries during accidents.”
The Court added that the contributory negligence arises when the injured party's negligence contributes to the harm they suffered and in the context of motor vehicle accidents, if a rider does not wear protective headgear as mandated, it could be argued that they contributed to the severity of their injuries.
“Moreover, under Section 129(a), the offense of not wearing protective headgear attracts a fine of Rs.1,000/- or suspension of the driving license for three months. Given this relatively minor penalty, reducing the insurance claim amount by 10% to 15% due to the non-wearing of protective headgear is unjust. The fine and suspension already address the non-compliance, making additional reductions in compensation disproportionate”, it further said.
The Court also observed that the principle of just compensation necessitates that courts award damages that are fair and equitable, considering all circumstances without unduly penalizing the claimant for not wearing a helmet and the primary focus remains on ensuring that victims receive adequate compensation for their injuries and losses.
“The Tribunal had taken a view at paragraph No.33 of its impugned judgment that though the claimant himself was riding the motor bike, which involved in the accident and in all preponderance of probability, he was not wearing helmet at the relevant time and thereby violated the provision of Section 129 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Admittedly, the claimant has sustained the fracture to skull as per Ex.P4-wound certificate issued by the Doctor and the scanning report. Therefore, the tribunal had come to the conclusion that the claimant cannot take shelter under the cited case laws as there is a violation of Section 129 of the Act in not wearing the helmet at the relevant time”, it noted.
The Court concluded that the MV Act is a beneficial legislation and the entire liability shall be fastened on the insurance company.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, modified the impugned judgment, and increased the compensation by Rs. 2,02,840/-.
Cause Title- Sadath Ali Khan v. Noor Ahmed Sayeed & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:28807-DB)
