Tripura HC : Pillion Rider Not Covered Under Act-Only Motor Insurance Policy Without Additional Premium

In view of the above and considering facts and circumstances of the present case on hand, this Court is of the considered view that since the policy is only an Act policy issued by the respondent-Insurance company to the insurer and the son of the appellants i.e. the victim was only an occupant of the rider of the motor cycle, cannot be considered as 'third party' of the vehicle. The doctrine of ‘pay and recovery’ also cannot be applied to the facts of the case, since the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation in view of the above discussions. {Para 13}

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA

 MAC APP 59 OF 2026. 

Sri Ranjan Chakraborty Vs Sri Debabrata Saha,

BEFORE HON‟BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD 

Citation: TRHC010007842026 2026:THC:1222

Print Page

Supreme Court: Pillion rider on a motor cycle along with the driver and one more person on the pillion, may be a violation of the law, but by itself cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence.

But the above reason, in our view, is flawed. The fact that the deceased was riding on a motor cycle along with the driver and another, may not, by itself, without anything more, make him guilty of contributory negligence. At the most it would make him guilty of being a party to the violation of the law. Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, imposes a restriction on the driver of a two-wheeled motor cycle, not to carry more than one person on the motor cycle. Section 194-C inserted by the Amendment Act 32 of 2019, prescribes a penalty for violation of safety measures for motor cycle drivers and pillion riders. 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 the law. But such violation by itself, without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is established that his very act of riding along with two others, contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim. There must either be a causal connection between the violation and the accident or a causal connection between the violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim. It may so happen at times, that the accident could have been averted or the injuries sustained could have been of a lesser degree, if there had been no violation of the law by the victim. What could otherwise have resulted in a simple injury, might have resulted in a grievous injury or even death due to the violation of the law by the victim. It is in such cases, where, but for the violation of the law, either the accident could have been averted or the impact could have been minimized, that the principle of contributory negligence could be invoked. It is not the case of the insurer that the accident itself occurred as a result of three persons riding on a motor cycle. It is not even the case of the insurer that the accident would have been averted, if three persons were not riding on the motor cycle. The fact that the motor cycle was hit by the car from behind, is admitted. Interestingly, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was wearing a helmet and that the deceased was knocked down after the car hit the motor cycle from behind, are all not assailed. Therefore, the finding of the High Court that 2 persons on the pillion of the motor cycle, could have added to the imbalance, is nothing but presumptuous and is not based either upon pleading or upon the evidence on record. Nothing was extracted from PW-3 to the effect that 2 persons on the pillion added to the imbalance.

14. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that the wrongful act on the part of the deceased victim contributed either to the accident or to the nature of the injuries sustained, the victim could not have been held guilty of contributory negligence. Hence the reduction of 10% towards contributory negligence, is clearly unjustified and the same has to be set aside.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2020 

Decided On: 08.01.2020

Mohammed Siddique  Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.V. Ramana and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.

Citation: (2020) 3 SCC 57

Print Page