Not wearing helmet per se cannot be reason attribute contributory negligence to accident victim, says court
A motor accident victim cannot be attributed with contributory negligence for not having worn a helmet while riding a twowheeler, and his/her family cannot be denied full compensation if the death occurred due to multiple other injuries and not solely head injuries, the Madras High Court has held.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh issued the ruling while disposing of an appeal preferred by an insurance company against the compensation granted in 2021 by a motor accident claims tribunal in Erode to the family of a 21-year-old engineering student who died after his motorcycle collided with a bus in 2010.
While perusing the tribunal’s order, the judge found that it had attributed contributory negligence to the youth for having failed to wear a helmet at the time of the accident and deducted a substantial amount from the total compensation to which his family was entitled.
The judge said the postmortem report had listed several ante-mortem injuries on his body and concluded that the victim appeared to have died of multiple injuries all over the body. “It is, therefore, evident from the postmortem certi cate as well as the nal opinion of the doctor that the head injury was not the sole cause for the demise. When that is the case, the non-wearing of helmet cannot be put against the deceased and contributory negligence cannot be attributed against him,” he held.
He went on to state: “In view of the same, this court, by exercising its power and jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is inclined to x the entire negligence on the driver of the bus and the tribunal’s order attributing contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is hereby set aside.”
Since the deceased was a college student, the tribunal had rightly xed his notional income at ₹12,000 a month to arrive at the compensation amount, using the multiplier method, but it had failed to add a reasonable quantum towards his future prospects while xing the income, Justice Venkatesh said.
He said 40% of the notional income must be added towards future prospects and ordered that the monthly income of the student be xed at ₹16,800. The judge also granted ₹1.2 lakh towards loss of love and aection towards the family and con rmed the compensation granted on other heads.