Triple riding warrants contributory negligence where vehicle overloading causally contributes to the accident.

On 20 November 2018, Imran was travelling with Devender and Waseem on a Honda Activa scooter near Kashmere Gate Metro Station, Delhi.

A bus owned by Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and driven by respondent no. 3 allegedly hit the scooter from behind, causing Imran to fall and be crushed under the bus’s front wheel.

An FIR was registered against the bus driver, who was subsequently charge-sheeted.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹21,27,200 with 8% interest.

The Corporation appealed, contending that the deceased was triple-riding, that the scooter was intended for persons with disabilities, and that the accident or its consequences were partly attributable to the deceased’s negligence.

Reliance was also placed on the mechanical inspection report, which recorded no damage to the front of the bus and damage to the right side of the scooter.

Whether the deceased’s triple-riding on the scooter, contrary to Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, established contributory negligence so as to reduce the compensation.

Whether the Tribunal had correctly determined the deceased’s monthly income by applying minimum wages of ₹14,000.

Whether the amounts awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses required modification in light of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.

The Court applied Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which restricts the number of persons who may be carried on a two-wheeled motor vehicle, and the general principle that a statutory violation amounts to contributory negligence only where a causal connection is established between the violation and either the accident or the injuries suffered.

This principle was drawn from Mohd. Siddique v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 3 SCC 57, which held that triple-riding by itself does not establish contributory negligence.

The Court also relied on T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan, (2008) 3 SCC 748, recognising contributory negligence where the claimant’s negligence partly contributes to the accident or injury.

Ved Kumari v. Kishan Lal, 1998 SCC OnLine Del 765, was relied upon for sustaining contributory negligence in a case involving triple-riding.

Compensation for loss of estate and funeral expenses was required to conform to the principles in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.

The Court held that although triple-riding alone would not automatically constitute contributory negligence under Mohd. Siddique, the surrounding evidence established a sufficient causal connection in the present case.

The scooter was designed for use by persons with disabilities and had a different configuration; it was carrying three persons while travelling down a flyover.

The site plan showed the scooter near the divider, the deceased at an intermediate point, and the bus on the extreme left side.

The mechanical inspection report showed damage to the right side of the scooter and no damage to the front of the bus.

From these circumstances, the Court considered it reasonable to infer that the overloaded and unwieldy scooter may have lost balance, thereby contributing to the accident.

It therefore fixed 10% contributory negligence on the deceased.

The challenge to the monthly income was rejected because the applicable minimum wage for an unskilled worker from 18 October 2018 was ₹14,000, whereas the accident occurred on 20 November 2018.

The Court reduced the amounts for loss of estate and funeral expenses from ₹20,000 each to ₹16,500 each in accordance with Pranay Sethi.

The Court upheld the monthly income of ₹14,000 and the loss-of-dependency calculation, but imposed 10% contributory negligence and reduced the compensation for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

On the revised computation, the compensation was ₹21,20,200, less 10% contributory negligence of ₹2,12,020, resulting in compensation of ₹19,08,180 with 8% interest.

The judgment records a contradictory figure of ₹19,09,180 in paragraph 20, but the tabulated computation and mathematical deduction yield ₹19,08,180.

The Corporation was directed to deposit the balance amount, with interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, before the MACT within four weeks; the amount was to be released to the claimants in lump sum within two weeks thereafter.

The appeal and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.