Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Road accidents in India often lead to heartbreaking consequences, especially when they involve two-wheelers like the iconic Royal Enfield Bullet colliding with a Scooty. Imagine a scenario where the Bullet rider's actions result in the Scooty rider's death and 40% permanent disability to the pillion passenger. Whether a rider of the offending Royal Enfield Bullet who hit the victim's Scooty, causing victim death and 40% disability to the pillion rider, is liable to pay compensation to claimants in a MACT case? This question arises frequently in Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT) under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
In this post, we explore the legal principles, key judgments, and practical steps for such claims. Note: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your case.
Generally, yes—the rider (driver) of the offending Royal Enfield Bullet is liable to pay compensation to the claimants, such as the legal heirs of the deceased Scooty rider and the injured pillion rider, provided the accident occurred due to the rider's rash and negligent driving. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the driver of the offending vehicle bears primary tortious liability for death or injury to third parties like Scooty occupants. Claims can be filed under Sections 166 (fault-based), 163A (no-fault), or 140 (limited no-fault) against the driver, owner, or insurer. NAND KUMAR SONI VS GOURI DEVI CHAUHAN - 2011 0 Supreme(Chh) 221CHANDRAKANTA TIWARI VS NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 463Unique Motor And General Insurance Co Ltd VS Krishna Kishori - 1967 0 Supreme(P&H) 130
Key points include:- The Bullet rider is personally liable if negligence causes death or permanent disability to victims on another vehicle.- Scooty occupants (rider and pillion) are third parties, allowing claims without proving their own insurance.- Liability extends to the driver exclusively or jointly, backed by evidence like eyewitnesses or police reports.
Courts consistently hold that the driver causing an accident through rash and negligent driving must compensate victims. This applies to motorcycle collisions, where the offending rider—like the Bullet rider hitting a Scooty—is responsible. For example, The driver can be held liable to pay compensation exclusively in cases where the insurer is not liable and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, injury has been caused to the owner of the motor vehicle, resulting in permanent disability or death.NAND KUMAR SONI VS GOURI DEVI CHAUHAN - 2011 0 Supreme(Chh) 221
This principle extends to third-party victims. In a similar scenario without direct collision, a scooter's pillion rider died after falling near a truck; the truck's owner/insurer was liable under Section 163A: the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle.United India Insurance Co Ltd Aizawl, Mizoram VS H Lianzeli Nursery Veng - 2021 0 Supreme(Gau) 311K. Sekar VS S. R. S. Travels, Karnataka - 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 447
Other cases reinforce this. In SRI PUTTEGOWDA Vs THE REGIONAL MANAGER, a claimant as pillion rider on a motorcycle suffered injuries due to rash and negligent riding of the Royal Enfield bullet, highlighting direct relevance to Bullet rider negligence.
Liability hinges on evidence: the accident was caused by the rash and negligent riding of the owner of the motorcycle.Unique Motor And General Insurance Co Ltd VS Krishna Kishori - 1967 0 Supreme(P&H) 130 Courts rely on FIRs, eyewitnesses, and mechanical reports. In one MACT case, the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, who was the owner of the motor vehicle and who was driving the aforesaid motor vehicle.CHANDRAKANTA TIWARI VS NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 463
Pillion riders on the victim's vehicle qualify as third parties: Pillion rider in a two wheeler is not to be treated as a third party when accident has taken place owing to rash and negligent riding of scooter own vehicle... but liability extends if caused by another vehicle.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Sudhakaran K. V. - 2008 4 Supreme 329 Thus, the 40% disabled pillion can claim fully against the Bullet rider.
From other sources, contributory negligence requires a causal link, e.g., no helmet doesn't automatically shift blame if not proven causative. Khem Raj Chettri VS Hem Bahadur Chettri - 2024 Supreme(Sikk) 19
Even without strict negligence proof, Section 163A provides no-fault liability: the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement... was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default.CHANDRAKANTA TIWARI VS NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 463United India Insurance Co Ltd Aizawl, Mizoram VS H Lianzeli Nursery Veng - 2021 0 Supreme(Gau) 311 This bolsters claims against the Bullet's owner/driver/insurer.
In K A KUTTAPPA Vs M U BOPPANNA, for a rider and pillion falling from a motorcycle, Section 163A liability applied without proving others' negligence.
While liability is strong, exceptions exist:- Causality required: Injury must arise from the vehicle's use; independent causes may absolve. Suresh Sakharam Kadam VS Transport Manager, Thane Municipal Transport - 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 770- Claimant negligence: If Scooty rider was solely at fault, Section 163A may not apply, falling to Section 140. K. Sekar VS S. R. S. Travels, Karnataka - 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 447- Driver's personal liability: Persists even if insurer isn't liable, but insurers cover third-party claims. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Sudhakaran K. V. - 2008 4 Supreme 329Oriental Insurance Company Limited VS K. M. Harish Kumar S/o. Shri Manjunatha - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 593- Disability proof: 40% needs medical certificates and testimony; courts may adjust for functional impact. D. Sampath VS United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2011 6 Supreme 215
Cases like United India Insurance Co Ltd vs H Lianzeli show no liability without evidence of damage or nexus, emphasizing proof.
Insurance nuances: Act policies often exclude own pillion riders but cover third parties. Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Sundaramoorthy - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 2957United India Insurance Company Ltd. , Chennai VS Sathish Kumar - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 447
Several judgments involving Scooties and Bullets add depth:- In P. S. Ramamurthy VS The Managing Director Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. , - 2010 Supreme(Mad) 1742, evidence from pillion rider (PW2) proved the accident, stressing primary documents.- Minor drivers bring vicarious liability on owners/parents. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , Bengaluru VS Hemanth S/o T. Ramesh - 2015 Supreme(Kar) 1358- Truck-Scooty dashes hold offending drivers liable despite licenses. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD. VS SUBRAMANIYAM MUDALIYAR - 2019 Supreme(Chh) 635- Permanent disability claims consider medical bills and future loss. Deepali VS Krishna - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 1426
A Bullet rider hitting a pedestrian lacked negligence evidence, quashing charges—but civil MACT differs. R. KRISHNA GANGA RAJU VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 2625
To succeed:1. File under Sections 166/163A, naming Bullet rider, owner, insurer.2. Submit FIR, eyewitness statements, medical/disability certificates, police reports.3. Claim loss of earnings (notional for deceased), 75-100% functional disability multiplier for pillion, pain/suffering, future prospects.4. Implead driver for cross-examination.5. Appeal low awards to High Court/Supreme Court.
Road safety saves lives. Drive responsibly. For personalized guidance, seek expert legal counsel. References listed below for further reading.
References:1. NAND KUMAR SONI VS GOURI DEVI CHAUHAN - 2011 0 Supreme(Chh) 221: Driver's exclusive liability.2. CHANDRAKANTA TIWARI VS NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 463: Negligence findings and no-fault.3. Unique Motor And General Insurance Co Ltd VS Krishna Kishori - 1967 0 Supreme(P&H) 130: Owner/driver for negligent riding.4. United India Insurance Co Ltd Aizawl, Mizoram VS H Lianzeli Nursery Veng - 2021 0 Supreme(Gau) 311: Offending vehicle claims.5. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Sudhakaran K. V. - 2008 4 Supreme 329: Pillion third-party status.6. D. Sampath VS United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2011 6 Supreme 215: Disability proof.
#MACTClaims #RoadAccidentLaw #MotorLiability
Before adverting to whether the injured claimant was a pillion rider and the appellant is liable to pay compensation or he was the rider of the motorcycle and being a tort-feasor himself is not entitled for any compensation, let us consider the award of compensation under Sec.163(A) r/w II Schedule. ... After examining the case and cause, the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/ Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, fo....
Before adverting to whether the injured claimant was a pillion rider and the appellant is liable to pay the pillion rider. ... and not a pillion rider and, so finding, held that act is liable to be set aside.
That, as the deceased was riding pillion on the scooty, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner and the scooty was duly insured vide a package policy, Exhibit 9, the Respondent No.6 was liable to pay the compensation granted and not the Appellant, the owner of the scooty. ... Therefore, the fact that a person was a pillion rider on a motor cycle along with the driver and one more person on the pillion, may be a violation of ....
In the present case, the victim/ claimant, being the pillion rider and has no negligence on his part. It is a case of ‘composite negligence’ as far as the claimant is concerned and he is entitled for compensation against both, or either of the parties to negligence. ... in M.A.C.M.A.No.1247 of 2016 shall be liable to pay the entire amount of compensation. ... The rider of the motor cycle TVS Moped did not blow the ....
The specific case of the claimant is that he was proceeding as pillion rider and one Prashanth was riding the motorcycle. ... The learned counsel for the claimant has contended that the claimant has suffered injury in the road traffic accident occurred on 29.8.2008 due to the rash and negligent riding of the Royal Enfield bullet ... It is the case of the claimant that on 29.8.200....
From the evidence of the petitioner, who was examined as PW1 and from the evidence of the pillion rider, who was examined as PW2, it is evident that the petitioner drove the TVS Scooty and that his friend had been the pillion rider in the said TVS Scooty. ... The PW2, pillion rider, in his evidence deposed that while the petitioner was riding the TVS Scooty, he had been the pillion rider; that the....
The rider and pillion rider fell down from motor cycle. ... A reading of said Section would indicate that the person who himself is the cause for accident resulting in permanent disability or death need not plead or establish the negligence on the part of the owner of the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. ... to pay in the case of death or perman....
ii) Whether the Claimant is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what extent and who is liable to pay?” ... The appellant’s counsel submits that the daughter of the respondent/claimant was a pillion rider in a Scooty bearing No. MZ01-N-7328 driven by one Mr. Lalhmangaihzuala. When the Scooty tried to overtake a Truck bearing No. ... No damage whatsoever was caused to the Scooty and there is no evidence to show....
ii) Whether the Claimant is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what extent and who is liable to pay?” [7.] The respondent/claimant gave her evidence before the learned Tribunal and Mr. K.M. ... The appellant’s counsel submits that the daughter of the respondent/claimant was a pillion rider in a Scooty bearing No. MZ01-N-7328 driven by one Mr. Lalhmangaihzuala. When the Scooty tried to overtake a Truck bearin....
Hence, there is clear violation of the provisions of Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the rider of TVS Scooty Pep, on which claimant was travelling as a pillion. ... Incidentally, TVS Scooty Pep bearing registration No. KA-09/EF 331 is belonging to his father - L. Nagaraju. The claimant is friend of Nithin, who had taken the claimant as pillion on the aforesaid TVS to visit their common friend. ... The said accident has taken place on 27-....
2. Present appellant had filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No.829 of 2012 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad contending that she has suffered permanent disability in accident dated 10.03.2012 in front of Temple of God Rama, near Baba Petrol Pump, Railway Station Road, between Scooty Suzuki Access bearing No.MH-20- BZ-4702 and truck bearing No.CG-07-C-1305. According to the claimant, she was driving the Scooty and her sister was the pillion rider. The said accident took place due to the sole negligence on the part of the truck driver. When they reached near ....
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the deceased travelled in the motorcycle as a pillion rider and nature of the policy being act one policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the pillion rider. He would further contend that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant, and therefore, it has to be reduced.
It is well settled that in an Act Policy the rider and the pillion rider of the two wheeler are not covered and Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation for the bodily injuries or the death. Whether, the pillion rider is covered under the Act Policy or not was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2006 (4) SCC 404 [United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla Vs. Tilak Singh and others], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the pillion rider is not covered in the Act Policy and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation ....
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 22.10.2012 at about 04:00 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Respondent No.2/Nonapplicant No.1, owned by non-applicant No. 2 and insured with non-applicant No.3, the said vehicle dashed the Scooty bearing registration No. CG-04/CZ/0564 of the Claimants. Claimant-Subramaniyam Mudaliyar was riding the Scooty and his sons/Claimants were the pillion rider of the said Scooty. Due to the accident the Claimants sustained injuries.
The material on record reveals that the Petitioner herein was a rider of the Royal Enfield (Bullet) Motor Cycle No. MH-01-BL-5453. The said motor cycle was driven on General Arunkumar Vaidya Road, which is a public way. Said motor cycle was involved in an accident, wherein a pedestrian by name Sinclair Samuel Valladares sustained injuries and latter succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
