Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 289
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
Rinku @ Gajendra, S/o Sh. Vikram Singh Dagar – Appellant
Versus
Shyambir Pathak S/o Sh. Daya Chand - Respondent
Mac. App. 52 of 2022
Decided on : 13-01-2025
For the Appellant :Mr. Varun Sarin & Ms. Parul Dutta, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Ms. Niyati, Advocate
Contributory negligence cannot be assumed for a pillion rider without evidence of direct causation; compensation must reflect actual income and future earning capacity.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal for enhancement of compensation due to injuries sustained in a road accident - The Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,41,664/- with 9% interest, which was challenged on grounds of contributory negligence, income assessment, and compensation for medical expenses. (Paras 1-2, 10, 12, 29)
(B) Contributory Negligence - The court emphasized that being a pillion rider does not automatically imply contributory negligence unless there is a direct causal link to the accident. (Paras 10-11)
(C) Compensation Assessment - The court recalculated total compensation based on loss of income, future earnings, and medical expenses, ultimately enhancing the amount to Rs. 8,31,000/- with interest. (Paras 29-30)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant was a pillion rider injured in a head-on collision on 11.02.2018, resulting in grievous injuries and a claim for enhanced compensation.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's deduction for contributory negligence was unjustified; the compensation was recalculated based on actual income and future prospects.
Issues: The main issues included the assessment of contributory negligence, income calculation, and adequacy of compensation for medical expenses and non-pecuniary damages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that contributory negligence must be established with evidence linking the pillion rider's actions to the accident; the Tribunal's assessment of income and future earnings was modified based on established legal principles.
Result: The total compensation was enhanced to Rs. 8,31,000/- with interest.
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. An Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed against the Impugned Award dated 12.06.2020 by the Appellant/Injured seeking enhancement of compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,41,664/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, awarded on account of injuries suffered by him in the road accident on 11.02.2018.
2. The enhancement of the compensation is sought on the following grounds :
(i) 50% deduction has been made towards contributory negligence of the Claimant by observing that it was a head on collision, without considering that he was merely a pillion rider;
(ii) The Income of the injured has been incorrectly calculated on the basis of Minimum Wages for unskilled worker in Haryana without considering that the Appellant was working as a Salesman earning a salary of Rs. 25000/- p.m.
(iii) The Loss of Earnings during treatment has been granted only for 5 months without considering the nature of the injuries;
(iv) The injured was assessed with 40% permanent disability in respect of right foot the functional disability is erroneously taken as 20% , without considering the limitations in his mobility;
(v) The future prospects have not been granted in light of the judgment of the National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680;
(vi) The compensation towards Medical Expenses needs to be enhanced in accordance with the Bills on record;
(vii) The amount granted for special diet and conveyance charges and attendant charges is on the lesser side;
(viii) The other amounts, under the Non-Pecuniary Heads such as pain and suffering and the loss of life and amenities, are liable to be enhanced.
3. Learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company has argued that the Impugned Award dated 12.06.2020 is well reasoned and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
4. Submissions heard and record perused .
5. Briefly stated, on 11.02.2018, at about 7:30 p.m., while Mr. Bhupender Singh, cousin of the injured Appellant was driving his motorcycle bearing No. HR-30E-0261 with injured/Appellant as the pillion rider, they were hit by the offending vehicle bearing No. HR-30N-8567, coming from the opposite side which was being driven rashly and negligently by the Respondent No.1/Shayambir Pathak. Due to the impact, the injured/Appellant fell and sustained grievous injuries all over his body and crush injury of his right foot.
6. The Appellant was taken to Metro Heart Institute, Faridabad for medical treatment and subsequently was shifted to Jail Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre (AIIMS) and St. Stephen's Hospital, Tis Hazari where his MLC No. 69/2018 prepared.
7. FIR No.0051/2018 u/s 279/338/337 IPC 1806 was registered with P.S. Chand Hut Distt. Palwal against the Driver/ Shyambir Pathak. The Charge- sheet was filed under Section 279/337/338 IPC 1860 after competition of the Investigations.
8. The Claim Petition was filed by the Appellant; vide the Impugned Award dated 12.06.2020, the Ld. Tirbunal awarded a total compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,41,664/- along with an interest @ 9% p.a.
Contributory Negligence of Pillion Rider:
9. The first ground of challenge is that merely because it was a case of head-on-collision, 50% contributory negligence has been attributed to deduct the compensation amount despite that he was travelling as a pillion rider on the Motorcycle which was being driven by his cousin Sh. Bhupender Singh.
10. In the case of Mohammed Siddique & Anr. vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2020 SC 520 the Supreme Court addressed the issue of contributory negligence concerning a pillion rider involved in a motor vehicle accident. The Court held that being a pillion rider, even if accompanied by more than the legally permitted number of passengers, does not automatically imply contributory negligence. For such a finding, it must be demonstrated that the pillion rider's actions directly contributed to the occurrence of the accident or e
