MOHAMMED SIDDIQUE & ANR. versus NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 931 · Decided: 08-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
931
MOHAMMED SIDDIQUE & ANR.
v.
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.79 of 2020)
JANUARY 08, 2020
[N. V. RAMANA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – The son of the
appellants died as a result of the injuries sustained in a road traffic
accident – The victim was one of the pillion riders on a motor cycle
and he was thrown off the vehicle when a car hit the motor cycle
from behind – The Tribunal found that the accident was caused due
to the rash and negligent driving of the car and arrived at an amount
of Rs. 11,66,800/- as the total compensation payable – This finding
was confirmed by the High Court, though with a rider that the victim
was guilty of contributory negligence, in as much as there were 3
persons on the motorcycle at the time of the accident, requiring a
reduction of 10% of the compensations awarded – The High Court
reduced the compensation to Rs. 4,14,000/- – On appeal, held :
The finding of the High Court that 2 persons on the pillion of the
motor cycle, could have added to the imbalance, is nothing but
presumptuous and is not based either upon pleading or upon the
evidence on record – In the absence of any evidence to show that
the wrongful act on the part of the deceased victim contributed
either to the accident or to the nature of the injuries sustained, the
victim could not have been guilty of contributory negligence –
Further, High Court erred in rejecting the evidence of PW-2 and
salary certificate produced with regard to the employment and
monthly income of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 14
instead of 18 – Therefore, the reduction of 10% towards contributory
negligence was unjustified and interference made by the High Court
with the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the monthly income
of the deceased was also uncalled for – Therefore, impugned order
of the High Court set aside and the award of the Tribunal restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The fact that the deceased was riding on a motor
cycle along with the driver and another, may not, by itself, without
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 931
931
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
932
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
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 194-C
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. There must either be a
causal connection between the violation and the accident or a causal
connection between the violation and the impact of the accident
upon the victim. It may so happen at times, that the accident could
have been averted or the injuries sustained could have been of a
lesser degree, if there had been no violation of the law by the
victim. What could otherwise have resulted in a simple injury,
might have resulted in a grievous injury or even death due to the
violation of the law by the victim. It is in such cases, where, but for
the violation of the law, either the accident could have been averted
or the impact could have been minimized, that the principle of
contributory negligence could be invoked. It is not the case of the
insurer that the accident itself occurred as a result of three
persons riding on a motor cycle. It is not even the case of the
insurer that the accident would have been averted, if three
persons were not riding on the motor cycle. The fact that the
motor cycle was hit by the car from behind, is admitted.
Interestingly, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the
deceased was wearing a helmet and that the deceased was
knocked down after the car hit the motor cycle from behind, are
all not assailed. Therefore, the finding of the High Court that 2
persons on the pillion of the motor cycle, could have added to
the imbalance, is nothing but presumptuous

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.