Carrying two pillion riders alone does not establish contributory negligence without proof of causation.

The appeals arose from a collision between a motorcycle carrying its rider and two pillion riders and an insured jeep.

The rider died, and the pillion riders sustained injuries.

The Tribunal awarded compensation in three connected claim petitions and held the insurer liable.

The insurer appealed, arguing that carrying two pillion riders in breach of Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, established negligence and relieved it of liability.

The High Court noted that the insurer’s challenge concerned liability alone.

Whether carrying two pillion riders, in breach of Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by itself established contributory negligence or otherwise displaced the insurer’s liability.

Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the insurer liable to pay compensation.

Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, restricts a motorcycle driver from carrying more than one person in addition to the driver.

However, as held in Mohammed Siddique v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2020) 3 SCC 57, breach of that restriction does not, by itself, establish contributory negligence; a causal connection must be shown between the breach and the accident or the nature or extent of the resulting injuries.

Syed Sadiq v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 735, establishes that contributory negligence cannot be inferred merely from an alleged accident location, absent evidence proving the claimant’s contribution.

The Court also referred to Dinesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 1 SCC 750, and Saraswati Palariya v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3988, in relation to the contention that negligence could be inferred from absence of a driving licence.

The prosecution records implicated the jeep’s driver, while the insurer produced no evidence establishing that the motorcycle’s carrying two pillion riders caused the collision or increased the impact of the accident.

The eyewitness denied the suggestion that the additional pillion rider impaired the motorcycle’s balance.

The admitted head-on collision and the alleged accident location did not, without supporting evidence, prove contributory negligence.

Applying Mohammed Siddique, the Court held that the statutory breach alone was insufficient to establish the required causal link; the insurer’s reliance on the rider’s lack of a driving licence likewise did not establish negligence on the record.

All three appeals were dismissed, and the amount in deposit was directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal for payment.