A pillion passenger cannot be imputed with the motorcycle driver’s negligence.

On 24 December 2020, Jayeshbhai was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle No. GJ-07-EJ-0703 from Nanpur Chowkdi towards Khatraj Chowkdi. Near Poonampura Patiya, the motorcycle allegedly collided with an unknown vehicle due to rash and negligent driving, causing Jayeshbhai serious injuries.

He received treatment from 24 to 27 December 2020 and was thereafter admitted to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, where he died during treatment. His legal representatives filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 242 of 2023 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nadiad, claiming compensation of ₹30,00,000.

The Tribunal awarded ₹15,58,936 by judgment dated 12 December 2024. The claimants preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation and challenging the deduction made on account of alleged negligence attributable to the pillion rider.

Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased’s income, future prospects, dependency loss and conventional heads of compensation, thereby awarding inadequate compensation?

Whether negligence of the driver of the motorcycle could be attributed to the deceased pillion rider so as to reduce the compensation payable to his legal representatives?

Whether the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation with interest under the principle of just and fair compensation?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, applying the statutory objective of awarding “just compensation.”

It relied on Pranay Sethi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 16 SCC 680, for assessment of future prospects and standardized conventional damages, including ₹18,150 each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses.

It relied on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780, for awarding consortium to each eligible dependent, quantified at ₹48,400 per dependent in the present case.

The Court applied Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2015) 9 SCC 273, distinguishing contributory negligence from composite negligence and holding that, in cases of composite negligence, the claimant may recover the entire compensation from any joint tortfeasor.

It further relied on Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati Rangole, AIR 2024 SC 4627, read with Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1997) 8 SCC 683, for the principle that negligence of the driver cannot ordinarily be imputed to an innocent passenger or pillion rider.

The Court found that the Tribunal had not properly assessed the deceased’s monthly income and had incorrectly reduced the compensation by attributing negligence to the pillion rider.

Applying the principle that a passenger is not a “backseat driver,” the Court held that the driver’s negligence could not be imputed to Jayeshbhai merely because he was travelling on the motorcycle.

The Court also held that compensation must be liberal, reasonable and equitable, keeping in view the beneficial purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act.

After reassessing dependency loss and the conventional heads of damages, including loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium for four dependents, the Court determined the total compensation at ₹24,82,296, as against the Tribunal’s award of ₹15,58,936.

The claimants were held entitled to an additional compensation of ₹9,23,360, together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks from receipt of the order.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded amount, including accrued interest, to the claimants after due verification and compliance with applicable court-fee requirements. All other directions of the Tribunal were maintained.