Case Note & Summary
The case involves a motor accident claim filed by Devidas Waikar (claimant) who was a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven by Narhari Chalak (respondent no.2). The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, resulting in injuries to the claimant. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum, holding the insurance company (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) liable to pay the compensation. The insurance company appealed against the award, contending that the claimant was not a third party and that the claimant's own negligence in not wearing a helmet contributed to the injuries. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the claimant, as a pillion rider, was not a third party but was covered under the comprehensive policy. However, the court held that the claimant was guilty of contributory negligence for not wearing a helmet, which aggravated the injuries. The court reduced the compensation by 20% on account of contributory negligence. The court also considered the claimant's income as a tailor and his permanent disability to compute the loss of earning capacity. The appeal was partly allowed, reducing the compensation from Rs. 1,50,000 to Rs. 1,20,000, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Compensation - Contributory Negligence - Pillion Rider - The claimant, a pillion rider on a motorcycle, was injured in an accident caused by the rash driving of the driver. The court held that the pillion rider, by not wearing a helmet, contributed to the severity of his injuries and thus was guilty of contributory negligence. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was reduced by 20% on account of such negligence. (Paras 10-12) B) Motor Accident Compensation - Third Party Claim - Pillion Rider - The court held that a pillion rider is not a 'third party' within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and thus the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation under a third-party policy. However, since the policy in question was a comprehensive policy covering the pillion rider, the insurance company was held liable. (Paras 8-9) C) Motor Accident Compensation - Quantum of Compensation - Reduction for Contributory Negligence - The court reduced the compensation by 20% due to the claimant's contributory negligence in not wearing a helmet, which aggravated the injuries. The court also considered the claimant's income and disability to compute the loss of earning capacity. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the claimant, a pillion rider, is entitled to full compensation from the insurance company despite his own contributory negligence in not wearing a helmet and whether the insurance company can avoid liability on the ground that the claimant is not a third party.
Final Decision
Appeal partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs. 1,50,000 to Rs. 1,20,000. The rate of interest at 7.5% per annum is maintained. The insurance company is directed to pay the reduced amount with interest from the date of petition till realization.
Law Points
- Contributory negligence
- Pillion rider not third party
- Duty to wear helmet
- Reduction of compensation
