‘Rider may get exuberant with girlfriend on pillion’: Madras HC cuts accident compensation

The Madras High Court has reduced the compensation payable to the family of a 19-year-old who died in a motorcycle accident, holding that his own actions contributed to the collision. While assessing the circumstances, the court also remarked that a young motorcyclist could become “exuberant” while riding with his girlfriend as pillion.

A Division Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and MD Sumathi apportioned 25 per cent of the responsibility for the accident to the deceased, Gopal. The finding resulted in a corresponding reduction in the amount awarded to his parents by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Midnight collision

The case arose from an accident on the Veerapandi-Vayalpatty Road shortly after midnight on May 10, 2018. Gopal was riding a motorcycle with his girlfriend Rajeshwari when the vehicle collided with a van coming from the opposite direction.

Gopal died at the scene, while Rajeshwari sustained injuries.

His parents subsequently approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Theni, seeking Rs 30 lakh in compensation. The tribunal awarded them Rs 25.54 lakh with interest.

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company, the insurer of the van, challenged the award before the High Court and contended that the motorcyclist's role in causing the crash had not been adequately considered.

Sketch becomes key evidence

The High Court placed considerable weight on the sketch prepared after the accident. According to the Bench, the document showed that the van remained on its proper side of the road, while the motorcycle had moved onto the wrong side.

The judges also took note of Gopal’s age, the late hour at which the collision occurred and the fact that his girlfriend was travelling with him.

It was in this context that the Bench made its observation about a rider becoming “exuberant” when accompanied by his girlfriend.

Another factor considered by the court was the absence of a valid driving licence. Although it was argued that Gopal had a learner’s licence, the document was not produced before the Bench.

Eyewitness version questioned

The High Court was not persuaded by testimony blaming the van driver for rash driving. It found that the eyewitness had not provided sufficient details to establish precisely how the van was being driven negligently.

Questions were also raised over the information recorded in the FIR. The Bench found it unusual that Rajeshwari was able to provide not only the van driver’s identity but also his father’s name following the accident, and expressed reservations about relying on the document to determine responsibility.

After considering the available evidence, the court concluded that responsibility could not rest entirely with the van driver.

Award reduced by 25 per cent

The Bench consequently fixed Gopal’s contributory negligence at 25 per cent and ordered an equivalent reduction in the compensation payable to his parents.

The insurance company’s appeal was therefore partly allowed, modifying the tribunal’s earlier award while leaving the remaining liability intact.