Intoxication and carrying two pillion riders do not establish contributory negligence without proof.

On 26 June 2022, a car allegedly struck a motorcycle from behind on NH-4 near Venkatapur village.

Kalavati Fakkirappa Habbannavar, a pillion rider, died in the accident.

Her legal representatives brought a claim against the car’s owner and insurer.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partly allowed the petition and fixed liability on the insurer.

The insurer appealed, alleging that the motorcycle rider’s intoxication and conduct contributed to the accident.

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

A party alleging contributory negligence must plead and prove it; the mere fact that a motorcycle carried two pillion riders or that its rider was intoxicated does not, without evidence connecting that conduct to the accident, establish contributory negligence.

The Court relied on The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. v. Smt. Sheela and Others, MFA No. 104700/2024 c/w MFA.CROB No. 100039/2025 (12 September 2025), for that principle.

It also observed that filing a charge sheet, by itself, does not prove contributory negligence.

The Court found that the car was insured on the date of the accident and that the charge sheet named both the car driver and the motorcycle rider, while indicating that the car struck the motorcycle from behind.

Although the insurer relied on the rider’s blood-alcohol results and the presence of two pillion riders, it produced no cogent evidence that either circumstance caused or contributed to the collision; the insurer had also not raised intoxication as a ground before the Tribunal.

The rider’s alleged lack of a helmet or driving licence did not establish contributory negligence in causing the accident or exonerate the insurer.

The Court therefore found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision.

The High Court dismissed the insurer’s appeal with costs and directed that any amount deposited be transmitted to the Tribunal.