Madras HC Cuts Pillion Rider’s Contributory Negligence From 25% To 10% After Noting He Wasn’t Wearing A Helmet, Raising Compensation To Rs 2.21 Lakh

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 25% contributory negligence to the claimant for not wearing a helmet, and whether that percentage should be reduced.

The court held

The appeal was partly allowed. The Court enhanced the total compensation to Rs.2,21,850 after applying 10% contributory negligence, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until deposit.

It also directed

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount, less any amount already deposited, within six weeks; the claimant may withdraw it upon application.

No costs were ordered.

01Facts

The claimant was injured on 11 December 2015 while travelling as a pillion rider when another motorcycle collided with his motorcycle.

p. 2, 6

He sustained serious head injuries, was hospitalised from 12 to 24 December 2015, and received outpatient treatment until July 2018

p. 2, 6

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found the offending motorcycle’s rider negligent, awarded Rs.2,37,500 before deducting 25% contributory negligence, and made a net award of Rs.1,78,200

pp. 3–4

The claimant appealed, seeking enhanced compensation and challenging the deduction for contributory negligence

pp. 5–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 25% contributory negligence to the claimant for not wearing a helmet, and whether that percentage should be reduced.

p. 6 · ¶ 13

ii.2. Whether the compensation awarded for disability and loss of income required enhancement.

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 14–15

03Law Applied

The claim was brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the appeal was pursued under Section 173.

p. 2, 1

In assessing compensation, the Court distinguished between a medical percentage of disability and functional disability or loss of earning capacity: where functional disability and loss of earning capacity are not proved, compensation may be assessed by the percentage method rather than by applying the multiplier method.

p. 7 · ¶ 14

The Court also considered the claimant’s failure to wear a helmet when assessing contributory negligence.

p. 6 · ¶ 13

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173 Section 166

04Reasoning

The Medical Board assessed the claimant’s disability at 20%, but the claimant provided no evidence that the disability affected his work or reduced his earning capacity. The Court therefore upheld the Tribunal’s award of Rs.80,000 using the percentage method, rather than applying a multiplier.

p. 7 · ¶ 14

It found the Tribunal’s notional monthly income of Rs.10,000 too low for a 25-year-old claimant in the circumstances, increased it to Rs.13,000, and allowed three months’ loss of income, raising that head from Rs.30,000 to Rs.39,000.

p. 8 · ¶ 15

Although the offending rider was responsible for the accident, the claimant’s failure to wear a helmet justified some contributory negligence; the Court reduced the deduction from 25% to 10%.

p. 6 · ¶ 13

05Holding

pp. 8–9 · ¶ 16–18

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount, less any amount already deposited, within six weeks; the claimant may withdraw it upon application.

p. 9 · ¶ 18

No costs were ordered.

p. 9 · ¶ 18

LawLens.Madras High Court

Original Court PDF