Triple riding alone does not establish a pillion passenger’s contributory negligence without proof of causation.

On 24 February 2018, a motorcycle carrying three persons collided head-on with a GSRTC bus near Babalpura bus stand.

The two pillion riders, Bhalabhai and Lalabhai, died; the motorcycle rider sustained injuries.

Their heirs filed claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Tribunal attributed negligence to the bus driver and awarded ₹17,12,200 in MACP No. 793 of 2018 and ₹17,92,200 in MACP No. 792 of 2018, with interest at 9% per annum.

GSRTC appealed, arguing that the motorcycle rider’s negligence and the fact of triple riding warranted a reduction in compensation.

Whether negligence of the motorcycle driver could be imputed to the deceased pillion riders, or otherwise reduce their compensation, where the accident involved the bus and motorcycle.

Whether triple riding, without evidence of a causal connection to the accident or its impact, established contributory negligence warranting a deduction from compensation.

Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claimants are entitled to just compensation; Section 173 provides for an appeal against the Tribunal’s award.

In composite negligence, a claimant may recover the entire compensation from any joint tortfeasor, and apportionment between tortfeasors does not reduce the claimant’s recovery; the inter se allocation is relevant to recovery between tortfeasors (Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2015) 9 SCC 273, quoted at para. 11).

A vehicle driver’s negligence is not imputed to a passenger (Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1997) 8 SCC 683, discussed at paras. 11–13).

Triple riding, by itself, does not establish contributory negligence: there must be evidence of a causal connection between the violation and the accident or the injury’s impact (Mohammed Siddique v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 3 SCC 57, quoted at para. 14).

The deceased were pillion riders and were not themselves shown to have caused the collision. The Court treated the accident as one involving composite negligence and held that GSRTC could not reduce their compensation by attributing the motorcycle driver’s negligence to them; a passenger is not legally identified with the driver.

Nor did the fact of triple riding, without evidence that it contributed to the collision or increased the impact on the deceased, establish contributory negligence. The proposed deduction was therefore unsupported by the applicable legal principles.

It directed the Tribunal to disburse the full compensation to the claimants if it had not already been disbursed.