Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Inferred Solely Because Three People Were Travelling On Two-Wheeler: Chhattisgarh High Court Reiterates
The Court set aside a 50% compensation deduction in a motor accident claim, while relying on the Supreme Court judgment where it has held that triple riding, without a causal link to the accident, does not constitute contributory negligence.
Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court while referring to Mohammed Siddique & another v. National Insurance Company Limited & others AIR 2020 SC 520 has reaffirmed that the mere act of three individuals traveling on a two-wheeler does not automatically amount to contributory negligence, thereby establishing that any reduction in compensation requires distinct proof that the overcrowding directly contributed to the occurrence of the accident.
Consequently, the Court set aside a 50% deduction previously imposed by the claims tribunal, noting that negligence must be factually demonstrated rather than presumptively inferred. The Court enhanced the compensation amount from ₹6,77,600/- to ₹18,88,606/-, declaring the appellants entitled to an additional sum of ₹12,11,006/-.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal observed, “…the Claims Tribunal has deducted 50% compensation towards the contributory negligence on the ground that on the offending vehicle three persons were traveling, however, the said finding of the Claims Tribunal runs contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammed Siddique (supra). Accordingly, deduction of 50% compensation is set aside…”.
Advocate Shashikesh Yadav appeared for the appellants and Advocate Bhupendra Singh appeared for the respondent.
Pertinently, in Mohammed Siddique, the Bench had observed, that, “…The fact that the deceased was riding on a motor cycle along with the driver and another, may not, by itself, without anything more, make him guilty of contributory negligence. At the most it would make him guilty of being a party to the violation of the law. Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, imposes a restriction on the driver of a two wheeled motor cycle, not to carry more than one person on the motor cycle. Section 194C inserted by the Amendment Act 32 of 2019, prescribes a penalty for violation of safety measures for motor cycle drivers and pillion riders...".
"...Therefore, the fact that a person was a pillion rider on a motor cycle along with the driver and one more person on the pillion, may be a violation of the law. But such violation by itself, without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is established that his very act of riding along with two others, contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim…”, the Supreme Court had noted further.
In the matter, the dispute arose following a fatal road accident involving the deceased, which led his dependents to approach the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking just compensation.
The Tribunal, while allowing the claim application, deducted half of the total assessed compensation on the sole ground that three persons were traveling on the vehicle at the time of the mishap.
The claimants subsequently preferred an appeal before the High Court, asserting that the tribunal erred both in applying the principle of contributory negligence and in under-assessing the monthly income of the deceased against the prevailing state minimum wage notifications.
The Court recalculated the financial dependency, raising the assessed monthly income of the deceased from six thousand rupees to seven thousand nine hundred thirty rupees in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification for skilled labor.
Factoring in future prospects, the appropriate multiplier, and an enhanced consortium layout for four claimants, the Court computed the total valid compensation.
Accordingly, the Court modified the impugned award dated January 31, 2019, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur.
The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order, carrying an interest rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim application until its realization, while all other conditions of the original award remain intact.
Cause Title: Fhulmati & Ors v. Nikhil Yadav & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC:26530)
Appearances:
Appellants: Shashikesh Yadav, Pushkar Sinha, Advocates.
Respondents: Bhupendra Singh, Swapnil Thawmy, P.R. Patankar, Advocates.