Kerala High Court: Motor Accident Compensation Can't Be Reduced If Helmet Not Worn It Won't Amount To Contributory Negligence

Kerala High Court: Motor Accident Compensation Can't Be Reduced If Helmet Not Worn It Won't Amount To Contributory Negligence

The Kerala High Court (HC) in the case titled Kadeeja Musaliyar and Ors. v. Riyas Manakadavan and Ors., National insurance Co. v. Kadeeja Musaliyar recently dealt with an issue wherein it heard appeals against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) Order.

The HC comprising of single-judge Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan ruled that as per Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act that made the non-wearing of a helmet an offense, the need for a connection between the violation of the helmet rule and the accident or consequences of the accident for the principle of contributory negligence would apply.

Issues before the HC

- Whether or not the Tribunal could reduce the compensation payable on a motorcycle accident if the deceased pillion rider rode without a helmet?

- Whether or not the principle of contributory negligence could be applied to such cases?

In the instant matter, the Tribunal allowed persons in a motor-cycle accident to claim compensation, reduced the quantum of compensation citing that the deceased (who was riding pillion) was not wearing a helmet. Applying the principle of contributory negligence, and modified the compensation.

The family of the deceased person moved to the High Court (HC) and the HC while answering to the issue of contributory negligence referred to Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act that made the non-wearing of a helmet an offense, the Court underscored the need for a connection between the violation of the helmet rule and the accident or consequences of the accident for the principle of contributory negligence.

The HC put reliance on the decision of the case titled 'Drawing from Mohammed Siddique v. National Insurance Company Ltd.' which made a similar declaration in the context of an accident case that involved a violation of Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The HC held that merely because there is a violation of Section 129 of the Motor Act 1988 by a victim in an accident, there is no presumption that there is contributory negligence on the part of the person who was not wearing the helmet. It is to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case.

It added that it is necessary to ascertain that the individual contributed to the accident that occurred, and while referring to the judgment of the case PJ Jose v. Vanchankal Niyas & Ors., it stated that to attribute contributory negligence, some other additional evidence is necessary.

The Court said that it is true that had the deceased be wearing a helmet, probably his life could have been saved and the gravity of the injury would not have been this much severe to have resulted in the death of the deceased.

It further said that however the consequence of the non-wearing of the helmet was not the reason for knocking down the rider of the motorcycle by the offending vehicle.

It concluded, "This is not a license to drive motorcycles without wearing a helmet. The authorities concerned shall see that Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act is compiled in its letter and spirit."