Pillion riders cannot be attributed contributory negligence in motor accident claims.

On January 1, 2007, the appellant (then aged 11) was traveling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven by his father. An S.T. bus driven by Respondent No. 1 collided with the motorcycle from behind, resulting in the death of the appellant’s father and brother and causing the appellant permanent partial disability of 10%.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Gir-Somnath, awarded Rs. 84,875/- with 9% interest, but deducted 30% of the total compensation on the grounds of the appellant's contributory negligence.

The appellant challenged this judgment before the High Court on the grounds of erroneous negligence assessment and inadequate quantum of compensation.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in attributing 30% contributory negligence to a minor pillion rider.

2. Whether the compensation awarded followed the prescribed judicial standards for minor claimants with permanent disabilities.

The principle that contributory negligence cannot be fastened upon a pillion rider unless an act or omission contributing to the accident is proven by the insurer, as established in Yashwant Krishna Kumbar v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Court relied on Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. (2014), which mandates a lump sum award (Rs. 1,00,000/- for disability up to 10%) for pain and suffering, mental shock, and loss of amenities, in addition to actual medical expenses.

The Court observed that the Tribunal committed a manifest error by deducting 30% for negligence, noting that the driver of the S.T. bus was solely responsible and that a pillion rider cannot be held contributorily negligent without cogent evidence.

Applying the Master Mallikarjun ratio, the Court found the Tribunal’s assessment of quantum inadequate for a minor claimant. It determined that the appellant was entitled to a fixed sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for non-pecuniary heads (pain, suffering, and loss of amenities) due to his 10% disability.

The Court maintained the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 90,000/- for medical expenses as it was supported by evidence, bringing the total gross compensation to Rs. 1,90,000/-.

The total compensation was revised to Rs. 1,90,000/-, resulting in an additional award of Rs. 1,05,125/-. The Court directed Respondent No. 2 (Gujarat S.T. Corporation) to deposit the additional amount with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition within six weeks.