Contributory negligence cannot be attributed to a pillion rider absent evidence of their own fault.

On 24 September 2022, Chandrakumar was riding a motorcycle with Mani as pillion passenger when it collided with a tractor.

Both sustained injuries and filed separate claims before the MACT.

The Tribunal attributed 50% contributory negligence to each claimant and awarded reduced compensation.

They appealed, challenging the negligence findings and seeking enhanced compensation.

The High Court noted that the accident occurred in the middle of the road, that the charge-sheet was filed against the tractor driver, and that the claimants relied on medical evidence of disability.

It ultimately reassessed compensation for both claimants.

The appeals were brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court applied the principles that contributory negligence may be apportioned according to the evidence concerning the accident, but a pillion passenger is not to be held contributorily negligent merely because the motorcycle rider was negligent.

In assessing injury compensation, the Court considered pain and suffering, loss of amenities, laid-up-period income and disability-based future income; for the latter, it used the formula monthly income × 12 × multiplier × functional disability percentage.

No precedent was cited.

The spot mahazar showed that the collision occurred in the middle of the road. The Court therefore upheld the Tribunal’s 50% negligence finding against Chandrakumar, notwithstanding the charge-sheet against the tractor driver.

It set aside the same finding against Mani because he was a pillion passenger.

For Chandrakumar, the Court accepted 10% functional disability and applied a monthly notional income of ₹15,500 and multiplier 18, producing future-income loss of ₹3,34,800; it also enhanced pain-and-suffering and loss-of-amenities awards.

For Mani, it assessed 5% functional disability, applying the same income and multiplier to calculate future-income loss of ₹1,67,400; it enhanced pain-and-suffering and amenities awards but reduced attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment expenses to ₹1,000.

Chandrakumar’s 50% contributory negligence was upheld; his total reassessed compensation was ₹4,70,800, of which 50% was deducted, leaving ₹2,35,400.

Against the Tribunal’s award of ₹55,500, the Court granted enhanced compensation of ₹1,79,900 with interest at 6% per annum from the petition date until realization.

Mani’s contributory negligence was set aside, and the Court assessed total compensation at ₹2,53,900.

The body of the judgment states that the enhancement over the Tribunal’s ₹35,250 award is ₹2,18,650; however, the operative order states the enhanced compensation as ₹2,15,650.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest within six weeks, and both claimants were entitled to release of the entire enhanced compensation.