Carrying two pillion passengers in breach of Section 128 attracts contributory negligence against the rider.

On 22 February 2021, Kuldeep Kamalesh was riding a two-wheeler with two pillion riders when it collided with a car. The two pillion riders, Tonika and Poongodi, died; Kuldeep sustained injuries.

Their claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, were allowed by the Tribunal, which found the car driver negligent and awarded compensation in three claims.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. appealed, challenging negligence and, in Kuldeep’s claim, the assessment of disability and compensation.

Whether the Tribunal erred in finding the car driver solely negligent, despite the two-wheeler carrying two pillion riders, contrary to the statutory limit.

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of permanent disability and compensation in Kuldeep’s claim required interference.

Whether the compensation awards in the claims arising from Tonika’s and Poongodi’s deaths required interference.

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides the basis for claims for compensation arising from motor-vehicle accidents, while Section 173 provides for appeals against awards of a Claims Tribunal.

Section 128 restricts a motorcycle rider from carrying more than one pillion passenger.

Applying the principle of contributory negligence, the Court held that carrying two pillion riders—exceeding that statutory limit—warranted attributing part of the negligence to the rider in the circumstances of this case.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court accepted the injured rider’s evidence about the accident and noted that the FIR was registered against the car driver. The insurer did not establish through cross-examination or other evidence that the accident was caused solely by the motorcycle rider, nor did it examine the car driver or an independent witness.

Nevertheless, because the motorcycle was carrying two pillion riders in breach of Section 128, the Court found that the rider contributed to the accident and fixed 20% contributory negligence on him; it did not attribute negligence to the pillion riders.

The Court declined to interfere with the disability assessment and compensation in Kuldeep’s claim, notwithstanding that the disability certificate had not been marked, having regard to the injuries and the Tribunal’s assessment.

It found no ground to disturb the death-claim awards.

CMA No. 3165 of 2026 was partly allowed: 20% contributory negligence was attributed to Kuldeep, reducing his award from Rs. 10,99,000 to Rs. 8,79,200, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until deposit, subject to the stated exception for any period of default.

The insurer was directed to deposit the reduced amount, less any sum already deposited, within four weeks; the Tribunal’s remaining directions were left undisturbed.