Extra passenger on bike leads to negligence: Karnataka High Court in accident case

In a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court reduced the compensation awarded to a woman injured in a motorcycle accident, citing her negligence. The HC stressed that the woman knowingly took the risk by riding on the motorcycle with four persons.

Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar allowed the appeal filed by insurance company ICICI Lombard Company Ltd against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the accident case.

The company disputed the compensation amount, arguing that the woman claiming the compensation was at fault for the accident.

The company’s lawyer believes that this is a case of falling off a bicycle, so the company does not bear the responsibility to compensate the owner and pay compensation.

Even though the claimant was identified as a pillion rider, there were three people riding on the motorcycle and the motorcycle skidded. Therefore, the claimant knowingly assumed that there were three people on the motorcycle and therefore assumed what amounted to a shared risk. Counsel argued that this was negligence.

On the other hand, the plaintiff’s counsel argued that the claim was maintainable as the plaintiff was a pillion rider. He argued that just because there were three pillion riders on the motorcycle did not mean the plaintiff was also at fault for the accident.

The Supreme People’s Court agreed with the arguments put forward by the insurance company’s lawyers. The court held that the plaintiff knew that there were four people on the motorcycle, putting himself at risk as a pillion rider, and was therefore negligent for the accident.

“…This is equivalent to 20% of the contributory negligence in the accident. Therefore, regardless of the amount of compensation determined by this court, the plaintiff can only receive 80% of the determined amount of compensation.”

Noting that the tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.5,87,029 to the claimant under different categories, the Supreme Court held that since the claimant was not terminated from service on account of disability caused by the accident, she was not entitled to any compensation for damages. Future earnings due to disability.

Further, the court held that she was entitled to compensation of only Rs 50,000 under loss of facility.

Therefore, the court, while partially allowing the company’s appeal, held that the plaintiff was entitled to 80% of the recalculated compensation amount, amounting to Rs 3,31,383, along with interest at 6% per annum.