Driving Motorcycle Without Valid License With 2 Pillion Riders No Basis For Inferring Contributory Negligence Unless There Is Negligence Of Deceased: Rajasthan High Court

The appeal before the Rajasthan High Court was filed by the appellants-claimants against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Update: 2026-04-15 13:30 GMT

Justice Sandeep Taneja, Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)

While enhancing the motor accident compensation, the Rajasthan High Court has held that driving a motorcycle without a valid driving license and with two pillion riders may be a violation of Motor Vehicles Rules but the same by itself cannot be a basis to make the deceased liable for contributory negligence unless there is a specific finding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased.

The appeal before the High Court was filed by the appellants-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partly allowing a claim petition.

Referring to the judgments of the Apex Court, the Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Taneja stated, “In light of the above judgments, it can be said that the driving a motorcycle without valid driving license and with two pillion riders may be a violation of Motor Vehicles Rules but the same by itself cannot be a basis to make the deceased liable for contributory negligence in the occurrence of accident, unless there is a specific finding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased.”

Advocate Aditya Sharma represented the Appellant, while Advocate Arvind Sharma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal stating therein that the victim Mahaveer, met with an accident while he was going on a motorcycle when a Jeep driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and hit the motorcycle. Resultantly, Mahaveer sustained injuries and subsequently died. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 79,45,000 on account of the death of Mahaveer. The respondent, Insurance Company, filed a reply to the claim petition and denied its liability to pay compensation on the ground that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself, as he was riding the motorcycle with two pillion riders and was also not in possession of a valid driving license.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs 4,49,384 in favour of the claimants, along with interest. Being dissatisfied with the impugned award, the appeal was preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation so awarded.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the plea raised by the Insurance Company alleging that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased was specifically rejected by the Tribunal. A specific finding of fact was recorded that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e. Jeep, which was being driven rashly and negligently. The Bench further noticed that despite concluding that the deceased was not at fault in the accident, the Tribunal attributed contributory negligence to him merely because he did not have a valid driving license and was riding the motorcycle along with two pillion riders.

The Bench referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. Surinder Singh & Ors (2008) where, while dealing with the issue of contributory negligence in case of injured not possessing a valid driving license, it was held that in the absence of a specific finding that the injured was driving the twowheeler rashly and negligently, the mere fact that the claimant was driving without a valid driving license cannot be a ground to hold him guilty of contributory negligence.

Considering that the Tribunal specifically recorded a finding of fact that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep and no negligence was attributed to the deceased, the Bench opined that the Tribunal was not justified in holding the deceased liable for contributory negligence. “In view of the above, the finding of the learned Tribunal to the extent of holding deceased liable for 20% contributory negligence, is hereby quashed and set aside”, it held.

The Bench further held that in the absence of cogent evidence regarding the income of the deceased, the monthly income of the deceased under the head of loss of dependency would be calculated based on the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker at the relevant point of time, which was Rs 115 per day. Enhancing the compensation by Rs 3,94,321, the Bench disposed of the appeal by directing that the rest of the impugned award would remain intact.