01Facts
Mailari, a pillion rider on a motorcycle, sustained grievous injuries in a collision with a truck on 20 April 2014; the motorcycle’s rider died.
pp. 2–4, 6The Tribunal awarded him ₹3,17,700 with interest at 9% per annum, holding the insurer liable.
pp. 2–4, 6The insurer appealed, disputing liability on grounds of contributory negligence, the income assessment and compensation under certain heads, and the interest rate.
pp. 2–4, 6Mailari and the vehicle owner were served but did not appear in the appeal.
pp. 1, 4–502Issues
i.1. Whether the motorcycle’s carriage of three persons, in alleged violation of Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, established contributory negligence warranting interference with the Tribunal’s award.
pp. 5–7 · ¶ 6–10ii.2. Whether the Tribunal’s income assessment and resulting compensation, including its award of interest at 9% per annum, required modification.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 11–16iii.3. Whether the impugned judgment and award required interference.
p. 6 · ¶ 703Law Applied
Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act regulates the number of persons carried on a motorcycle. Under Mohammed Siddique v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 3 SCC 57, carrying more than the permitted number of persons does not, by itself, establish contributory negligence; a causal connection must be shown between the violation and the accident or the resulting injury.
pp. 7–8 · ¶ 9–10The Court applied the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority’s notional-income chart, which fixed monthly income at ₹7,500 for accidents in 2014.
p. 8 · ¶ 11It also relied on Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy, (2013) 15 SCC 45, and United India Insurance Co. v. Malyadari, MFA No. 3895/2018 (1 June 2026), in upholding 9% interest, having regard to relevant economic factors and the nature of the injuries.
p. 10 · ¶ 16Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173Section 166Section 128
04Reasoning
The insurer produced no evidence that the presence of three persons on the motorcycle caused the accident or contributed to the claimant’s injuries.
pp. 7–8 · ¶ 9–10The Court therefore declined to attribute contributory negligence to the motorcycle’s rider merely because Section 128 had been violated.
pp. 7–8 · ¶ 9–10It substituted the chart-prescribed monthly income of ₹7,500 for the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹9,000, while retaining the 7% whole-body disability and multiplier of 15; this reduced future-earnings compensation to ₹94,500.
pp. 8–9 · ¶ 11–14It also recalculated laid-up-period income for four months at ₹30,000, leaving the other heads undisturbed.
pp. 8–9 · ¶ 11–14The Court found no basis to reduce interest below 9% per annum.
p. 10 · ¶ 1605Holding
The appeal was allowed in part.
pp. 9–11 · ¶ 15–17The award was modified, reducing total compensation from ₹3,17,700 to ₹2,92,800, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.
pp. 9–11 · ¶ 15–17The insurer was directed to deposit the modified compensation with accrued interest before the Tribunal within six weeks of receiving the certified judgment; apportionment and disbursement were to follow the Tribunal’s award, and the modified award was to be drawn accordingly.
pp. 10–11 · ¶ 17Original Court PDF
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,vsMAILARI S/O MALLAPPA SIDDAKKANAVAR,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
