Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has clarified that the family of a pillion rider who is killed in a two-wheeler accident cannot be deprived of compensation just because the rider of that vehicle did not have a valid driving licence.
The court also made it clear that the pillion rider cannot be held liable for contributory negligence in case an accident occurs.
Justice T. Amarnath Goud was dealing with an appeal filed in 2012 by the heirs and wife of one B. Krishnaiah, who was riding pillion on a two-wheeler and was killed when a jeep hit the vehicle at Kondurg village of Mahbubnagar district in 2004. The appellants challenged the order of the trial court — the City Civil Court, Hyderabad — which had fixed the compensation at `1,78,800 with interest of nine per cent per annum from 2005.
They contended that Krishnaiah was their only breadwinner and the compensation was not sufficient for the family of four, including a minor daughter. They sought compensation of Rs 15 lakh against the owner of the jeep and its insurer.
The trial court came to the conclusion that there was “equal contributory negligence” on part of the rider of the motorcycle and driver of the jeep and accordingly fixed liability. It found that the motorcycle rider did not have a driving licence.
Ms B. Roja Ramani, counsel for the appellants, submitted that the trial court had erroneously come to the conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the motorcycle rider without any strong basis. Further, she said, “contributory negligence” was a matter of affirmative defence that came into being only after the establishment of the negligence and liability of the opposite parties.
“Where a person is injured or dies without any negligence on his part but as an effect of the negligence of other persons, it is not a case of contributory negligence”, counsel said.
Counsel submitted several citations of the Supreme Court and various high courts stating that scooterists cannot be held guilty of contributory negligence because of not possessing a driving licence. Mr V. Sambasiva Rao, standing counsel for the insurer, opposed the contention of the appellants and said that the trial court had passed a well-reasoned order.
In light of the competing claims, Justice Amarnath Goud observed that it was well-settled law that in motor accident claim cases, it should not adopt a hyper technical approach. He clarified that the pillion rider cannot be held liable for contributory negligence.
Justice Goud determined the quantum of compensation amount as Rs 17.74 lakh on the basis of Supreme Court rules which framed the procedure to be followed in determining compensation in motor accident cases.
