Madras High CourtTransport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

Triple Riding Alone Didn’t Justify 50% Blame: Madras HC Raises Compensation to Deceased Rider’s Family to ₹25.78 Lakh

B. Usha alias Usha Devi,v.The Managing Director,

Triple Riding Alone Didn’t Justify 50% Blame: Madras HC Raises Compensation to Deceased Rider’s Family to ₹25.78 Lakh. B. Usha alias Usha Devi, vs The Managing Director,. Madras High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether triple riding, contrary to Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, justified attributing 50% contributory negligence to the deceased.

The court held

The appeal was partly allowed.

It also directed

The Court modified the negligence apportionment to 75% against the bus driver and 25% against the deceased, and revised the gross compensation to Rs. 34,38,000.

After deducting 25% for contributory negligence, the claimants were held entitled to Rs. 25,78,500, enhancing the Tribunal’s award from Rs. 16,56,500.

The respondent was directed to deposit the enhanced amount, less any amount already deposited, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the claim-petition date; directions were also made concerning withdrawal and the minors’ shares.

01Facts

On 5 September 2010, Balakrishnan was riding a two-wheeler with his two brothers when it collided with a State Transport Corporation bus.

¶ 3–8

All three riders died.

¶ 3–8

The claimants—Balakrishnan’s wife, children and parents—challenged the Tribunal’s award, which attributed 50% contributory negligence to Balakrishnan because the two-wheeler carried three persons.

¶ 3–8

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 33,13,000 before the deduction for contributory negligence, resulting in an award of Rs. 16,56,500.

¶ 18

02Issues

i.1. Whether triple riding, contrary to Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, justified attributing 50% contributory negligence to the deceased.

¶ 12–15

ii.2. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s income and other compensation heads warranted interference.

¶ 9, 11, 16–18

03Law Applied

Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, restricts the number of persons who may be carried on a two-wheeler.

¶ 12–13

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

¶ 12–13

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Act.

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173Section 128

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 279Section 337

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that carrying three persons violated Section 128, but held that the violation alone could not sustain the Tribunal’s 50% deduction.

¶ 14–15

Having regard to the evidence, including the claim that the bus was driven at speed and on the wrong side, the Court considered the bus driver’s negligence predominant while finding some contributory role on the deceased’s part.

¶ 14–15

It therefore reallocated negligence as 75% to the bus driver and 25% to the deceased.

¶ 14–15

The Court found no reason to disturb the Tribunal’s assessment of income, multiplier or deduction for personal expenses, but increased funeral expenses and consortium and awarded transport expenses.

¶ 16–18

05Holding

The appeal was partly allowed.

¶ 18–23

The Court modified the negligence apportionment to 75% against the bus driver and 25% against the deceased, and revised the gross compensation to Rs. 34,38,000.

¶ 18–23

After deducting 25% for contributory negligence, the claimants were held entitled to Rs. 25,78,500, enhancing the Tribunal’s award from Rs. 16,56,500.

¶ 18–23

The respondent was directed to deposit the enhanced amount, less any amount already deposited, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the claim-petition date; directions were also made concerning withdrawal and the minors’ shares.

¶ 18–23
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

B. Usha alias Usha Devi,vsThe Managing Director,

Madras High Court · November 05, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment