Any rider may get ‘exuberant’ with girlfriend on pillion: Madras HC cuts accident compensation

The Madras High Court recently held that a 19-year-old motorcyclist, who died in a head-on collision, was partly responsible for the accident since the young rider may become “exuberant” because his girlfriend was riding pillion when the accident occurred [Branch Manager Vs Nagapandi]

A bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and MD Sumathi also noted that the deceased rider did not have a license and was riding on the wrong side of the road when the accident happened.

Hence, the Court fixed 25 percent contributory negligence on the deceased and reduced the compensation awarded to his parents.

"The deceased was a young man aged about 19 years. His girlfriend was sitting in the pillion. Any rider is bound to be exuberant when his girlfriend is sitting in the pillion. The two wheeler was going from West to East," the Court said.

The accident took place shortly after midnight on May 10, 2018 on the Veerapandi-Vayalpatty Road.

Gopal was riding a two-wheeler when it collided head-on with a van. He died on the spot, while the pillion rider, one Rajeshwari, was injured.

His parents later sought ₹30 lakh as compensation. A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Theni awarded them ₹25.54 lakh with interest.

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company, which had insured the van, challenged the award before the High Court. It argued that Gopal was also at fault and that the compensation should be reduced.

The High Court relied on a rough sketch of the accident spot. It found that the van was travelling on the correct side of the road while Gopal’s two-wheeler was on the wrong side.

The Court noted that the accident happened shortly after midnight and that Gopal was only 19 years old.

“Being on the right can be a traffic-wrong,” the Court said.

It further noted that Gopal did not have a driving licence. Though it was claimed that he had a learner’s licence, no such document was produced.

The Bench was also not convinced by an eyewitness who said that the van was being driven rashly. It said the witness had not explained what exactly made the driving rash or negligent.

The Court also said the FIR appeared to have been “tailor made to sustain the claim”. It noted that Rajeshwari had given both the van driver’s name and his father’s name, though the Court found it unlikely that she would have known such details.

Therefore, the Bench held that Gopal had also contributed to the accident.

“By his conduct, he had contributed to the occurrence. We quantify the contributory negligence of the deceased at 25%.”

The compensation was reduced by 25% and the insurance company’s appeal was partly allowed.

Advocate KR Shivashankari appeared for Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company.

Advocate VP Rajan represented Gopal’s parents.

Advocate C Jawahar Ravindran appeared for Oriental Insurance Company.

[Read Judgment]