Pillion Rider Being Gratuitous Passenger Is Not A Third Party Under Motor Vehicles Act: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court held that a pillion rider being the gratuitous passenger is not a third party under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA).
The Court was dealing with a miscellaneous first appeal filed by National Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and award passed by Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC).
A Single Bench of Justice C.M. Joshi observed, “Coming to the question as to the pay and recover, it is relevant to note that the avoidance clause referred supra, is concerning the person indemnified by the policy or any other person to recover an amount under or by virtue of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the case on hand, the petitioners are not the persons covered under the Motor Vehicles Act, as the decisions referred supra clearly and categorically lay down that the pillion rider being the gratuitous passenger is not a third party. Therefore, the said clause is not at all applicable to the case on hand. Hence, the contention of pay and recover is also not maintainable.”
Advocate A.N. Krishna Swamy appeared on behalf of the appellant while Advocates A.K. Bhat and M.V. Maheshwarappa appeared on behalf of the respondents.
In this case, in the year 2011, the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on a bike and while so travelling near weir of Kunigal big tank, the rider of Hero Honda Bike rode it in high speed in rash and negligent manner taking his vehicle in a ditch, as a result fell on the right side of the road with the bike. Due to this, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and was in ICU. He died and the petitioners i.e., family members performed his last rites by incurring expenses and incurred medical expenses as well. The deceased was aged about 24 years, bachelor and was earning Rs. 500/- per day from scrap business.
The police registered a case against the offending bike rider under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the family members claimed compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs with 12% interest per annum. It was submitted by the respondents that the bike rider and deceased did not wear protective head gear and hence, contributory negligence may be fixed against the deceased. The insurance company contended that the policy issued was ‘Act Only’ policy and hence, pillion rider was not covered under the same. The Tribunal partly allowed the petition awarding Rs. 7,27,114/- compensation being aggrieved by which the insurance company approached the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “There is absolutely no argument is canvassed in respect of the quantum of the compensation. The Tribunal has considered the fact that the deceased was a bachelor and therefore, it has deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Obviously, the said calculation is in conformity with the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others.”
The Court also said that the Tribunal considered the notional income at Rs. 4,500/- per month and no arguments are canvassed in this aspect, therefore, no interference or reassessment is required in the same.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title- The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sanaulla Khan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023:KHC:42494)
