Triple Riding on motorcycle: Madras High Court sets aside compensation to deceased rider’s family

The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) granting compensation to the family of a man who died in a motorcycle accident while riding the motorcycle with two pillion riders [National Insurance Company Limited v S Muthu]..Justice R Tharani held that the claimants were not entitled to the compensation amounting to ₹4,50,000 since the rider of the bike was responsible for the injury caused to the two pillion riders and, therefore, the claim on his death was not maintainable.Additionally, it was found that there was contributory negligence on the deceased pillions’ part and thus, their compensation was halved.“Three persons had travelled in a motorcycle at the time of accident. Two persons travelled in a two wheeler as pillion riders, which is against the Rules. Hence, both the pillion riders contributed 50% to the negligence”, the single-judge observed..The insurance company appealed against the MACT order reasoning that the date, time and place of the occurrence were incorrect.It was also submitted that the three were travelling on the bike in contravention of the Motor Vehicle Rules. Additionally, the company claimed that the rider was intoxicated and the three met with the accident due to the rider’s negligence..The insurance company also cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ningamma v United India Insurance Co Ltd wherein it was held that a person borrowing a vehicle from the owner automatically steps into the shoes of the owner and hence, the insurer would not be liable to indemnify the owner for their own damages.It was stated that since the rider borrowed the vehicle from his brother, he was considered the owner himself..The Court agreed with this line of argument, and set aside the compensation granted to the rider’s family.The compensation of ₹3,60,000 to one pillion was reduced to 1,80,000 and that of the other was reduced from ₹4 lakh to ₹2 lakh..Advocate D Sivaraman appeared for the appellant while the respondents were represented by Advocate N Sudhagar Nagaraj..[Read order]