Contributory negligence in motor vehicle accidents requires a causal connection between the violation of safety laws and the accident's occurrence.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - The Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gangtok, Sikkim, (for short, 'MACT') awarded a total compensation of Rs. 63,04,500/-(Rupees sixty three lakhs, four thousand and five hundred) only, to the Claimants (Respondents No.1 to 5 herein), and directed the Appellant, (Respondent No.1 before the Learned MACT), to make good the compensation to the Claimants. Dissatisfied by the liability thrust on him, in MACT Case No.16 of 2022, (Hem Bahadur Chettri and Others vs. Khem Raj Chettri and Another), dated 29-05-2023, the Appellant is before this Court.

2. The Claimant No.1 (Respondent No.1 herein) is the husband of the deceased, the Claimants No.2 and 3 (Respondents No.2 and 3 herein), are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively, of the deceased and the Claimants No.4 and 5 (Respondents No.4 and 5 herein), are the children (son and daughter respectively) of the deceased.

(i) The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in terms of their litigative status before this Court.

(ii) On 22-03-2022, the deceased, the wife of the Respondent No.1, aged about thirty-three years, earning a monthly fixed salary of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand) only, was travelling from Cheuribotey, West Pendam (East Sikkim) toward Pendam, riding pillion on the scooty belonging to and driven by the Appellant, bearing registration no.SK-08-P-2080. The scooty which was speeding, suddenly veered off the road, at 8th Mile, injuring the deceased, who succumbed to her injuries enroute to the District Hospital, Singtam. The scooty was duly insured with the Respondent No.6, the Insurance Company (Respondent No.2 before the Learned MACT), vide Exhibit 9, a package policy. Compensation of Rs. 70,36,500/- (Rupees seventy lakhs, thirty six thousand and five hundred) only, was claimed by the Respondents No.1 to 5.

(iii) The Claim Petition was resisted by the Appellant, who averred that he had a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident and the vehicle was duly insured with the Respondent No.6 being a 'bundled policy' (first class insurance). That, the liability rested on the Respondent No.6 and he could not be rendered liable personally to pay the compensation to the Respondents No.1 to 5.

(iv) The Respondent No.6 was proceeded ex-parte having appeared only once on 14-09-2022 before the Learned MACT. No written statement was filed by the Respondent No.6.

(v) The Learned MACT settled three issues for determination;

(1 ) Whether the Petitioners/Claimants are entitled to the compensation or not? If so, who is liable to compensate?

(2 ) Whether the documents of the accident vehicle bearing registration no.SK-08-P-2080 were valid and effective at the time of accident?

(3 ) Whether the Claimants are entitled to any relief(s)?

(vi) The Learned MACT after considering the evidence and documents on record concluded in issue no.1 that, the pillion rider was not wearing a helmet, thereby contravening the provisions of Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, the 'MV Act'), which mandates the wearing of protective headgear. That, in the instant case the Appellant had allowed the deceased to ride pillion on his scooty, in clear violation of the said provision, hence it was concluded that the Respondents No.1 to 5 are entitled to the compensation, the liability of which rested upon the Appellant. In issue no.2, it was found that all the documents of the vehicle in accident including the driving licence were valid and effective at the time of accident and hence issue no.2 was decided accordingly. In issue no.3, the Learned MACT reached a finding that the income certificate, Exhibit 13, indicated that the deceased was earning Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand) only, per month, working as a supervisor in Sikkim Foils, located at Bardang, Singtam, Sikkim and having found that the age of the deceased was thirty-three years in terms of the inquest report Exhibit 4, the compensation was computed accordingly and th