Pillion rider can't be denied motor accident compensation citing bike rider's negligence: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court recently held that a pillion rider injured in a road accident cannot be denied compensation on the ground that the rider of the motorcycle was negligent [Santhosh v EA Sainaba & ors].

Justice Anil K Narendran observed that an innocent passenger cannot be held responsible or be blamed for the negligence of the motorcycle rider.

The Court made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by one Santhosh, who was injured after the bike he was travelling on as a pillion rider collided with a bus.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Yashwant Krishna Kumbar v Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co Ltd to explain that pillion riders or passengers cannot be held vicariously liable for the negligence of vehicle drivers.

"The appellant-claimant, being a third-party pillion rider on the two-wheeler, cannot be held to be responsible or having contributed to the accident. In such circumstances, the appellant-claimant is entitled to recover the entire compensation from any one of the tortfeasors, and there is no legal warrant for reducing the award on account of apportionment of negligence between the driver of the stage carriage and the rider of the two-wheeler," the Court held.

The case arose from a road accident that occurred on June 28, 2004.

Santosh was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle when it was hit by a bus. He suffered multiple injuries, including a fracture to his right thighbone.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Ernakulam, had awarded compensation of ₹57,922 as compensation, but deducted 50 per cent on the ground that the motorcycle rider was also negligent and had contributed to the accident, leaving Santosh with only ₹28,961 as compensation.

Before the High Court, Santosh argued that the tribunal had wrongly reduced the compensation, and that he was only a pillion rider. He, therefore, sought the enhancement of the compensation awarded to him.

The Court noted that the FIR and charge-sheet in the criminal case registered following the collision indicated that, prima facie, the bus driver was negligent.

The motorcycle rider had not been charge-sheeted, and no oral evidence had been produced to establish negligence on his part, the Court observed. Therefore, it held that the MACT had committed a grave error by relying on a scene mahazar and inspection report to conclude contributory negligence on his part.

It further found that the tribunal had fixed the claimant's (appellant's) monthly income at a lower than reasonable figure. The Court, therefore, increased it from ₹3,500 to ₹4,500, in light of the Supreme Court decision in Ramachandrappa v Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, in which the top court had fixed the notional monthly income in accidents that occurred in 2004.

The High Court also enhanced the compensation awarded towards the loss of earnings, medical expenses, extra nourishment, and damage to clothing after taking note of the claimants injuries, including the fracture and 11 days of hospitalisation.

However, it refused to enhance compensation for pain, suffering and loss of amenities, in the absence of evidence establishing any permanent disability from the accident.

The Court proceeded to restore the compensation that had been reduced by the tribunal. Accordingly, it directed the insurer, New India Assurance Company Limited to pay the appellant an additional ₹45,389, with interest of 8 per cent per annum from the date of the accident (in 2004) till the date of the MACT award (in 2010). This payment is to be made within two months from the date of the judgment, the Court added.

Advocates Cherian Sebastian and M James Antony appeared for the claimant/ appellant.

Standing counsel NS Najeeb represented the insurance company.

[Read Judgment]