A pillion rider cannot be attributed the motorcycle driver’s contributory negligence.

On 20 September 2009, a motorcycle driven by Gambhirsinh, with Omprakash as pillion rider, collided head-on with a luxury bus. Both occupants sustained injuries.

They filed separate claim petitions: Gambhirsinh sought compensation in MACP No. 1636 of 2009 and Omprakash in MACP No. 1706 of 2009.

The Tribunal found the bus driver 70% negligent and Gambhirsinh 30% contributorily negligent, applied that deduction to both claims, and awarded Rs. 4,13,840 to Gambhirsinh and Rs. 1,13,316 to Omprakash.

The claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the negligence findings, the deduction from the pillion rider’s award, and the refusal to award compensation for future prospects.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 30% contributory negligence to Gambhirsinh in the head-on collision.

Whether the driver’s contributory negligence could be attributed to Omprakash, the pillion rider, or whether his claim involved composite negligence.

Whether the claimants were entitled to compensation for future prospects when assessing loss of income.

Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, an aggrieved claimant may appeal a Tribunal’s award.

In determining negligence in a head-on collision, the court must objectively assess the conduct of both drivers and the surrounding circumstances; a finding excluding or assigning negligence requires a reasoned comparative assessment (Parmila v. Rajendra).

Contributory negligence is the claimant’s own negligence and cannot ordinarily be imputed to a passenger because of the driver’s conduct; where multiple parties cause an injury, the passenger’s claim is governed by composite negligence.

Under Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., a claimant may recover the full compensation from any joint tortfeasor, with apportionment relevant to the tortfeasors’ inter se liability.

Future prospects may be included in assessing just compensation for injury-related loss of income, including where income is assessed by reference to minimum wages in the absence of concrete income evidence (Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari).

The Tribunal’s 30% negligence finding rested substantially on the fact of a head-on collision and damage to both vehicles, while the bus driver—who did not appear or testify—was the best witness to the accident; the claimants, by contrast, gave evidence about how it occurred.

The High Court considered 30% excessive and reduced Gambhirsinh’s contributory negligence to 10%.

It held that the Tribunal wrongly deducted the motorcycle driver’s negligence from Omprakash’s award: as a pillion rider, Omprakash’s claim was subject to composite-negligence principles, and the driver’s negligence could not be imputed to him.

The Court also found that the Tribunal had omitted future prospects and recalculated compensation using 40% future prospects for both claimants.

For Omprakash’s claim (First Appeal No. 911 of 2021), the Court fixed total compensation at Rs. 2,21,976, made no deduction for negligence, and awarded an additional Rs. 1,08,660. For Gambhirsinh’s claim (First Appeal No. 912 of 2021), it fixed total compensation at Rs. 7,50,080, deducted 10% for contributory negligence, and awarded an additional Rs. 2,61,232.

The enhanced amounts carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of the respective claim petitions until realization; the insurer was directed to deposit them within eight weeks, and the Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded amounts in accordance with the judgment.