3 men on motorcycle: 50% negligence liability

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has upheld a Tribunal order imposing a liability for negligence at 50% on the motorcycle driver involved in an accident. Three people were riding the motorcycle. The Tribunal ruled the negligence liability at 50:50 between the motorcycle driver and the car driver involved in the accident. The Tribunal had directed the insurer of the car to pay compensation to the motorcycle riders after deducting 50% for negligence.

The advocate for the motorcycle riders had contended “the merely three people riding in the motorcycle cannot by itself lead to inference that there is negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle.” Justice NS Sanjay Gowda heard a batch of six appeals filed in 2018 in connection with the accident. The accident had taken place in Mahadevapura in 2016.

Three men riding a motorcycle had dashed against a car. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) had awarded compensation of Rs.2.02 lakh, Rs.1.47 lakh and Rs.15,000 to the three motorcycle riders. The liability of the accident was fixed at 50:50 between the rider of the motorcycle and the car driver. The three motorcycle riders and the insurance company filed appeals against the MACT order in 2018.

The HC gave its judgement on it recently. The insurance company claimed that there was no liability of the car driver in the accident and the entire liability was on the driver of the motorcycle as he was riding the single motorcycle with two others. “It is the case of the insurer that the entire negligence had to be attributed to the rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the car ought to have been exonerated of all liability,” the HC noted.

The counsel for the motorcycle riders contended that “the attribution of 50% on the rider of the motorcycle itself was incorrect, given the fact that the driver of the car was not examined.” Both the driver of the car and the driver of the motorcycle had lodged complaints alleging negligence against each other.

“It is not in dispute that on the complaint lodged by the driver of the car, a chargesheet has been lodged against the rider of the motorcycle. It is also not in dispute that on the complaint filed by the rider of the motorcycle alleging negligence on the driver of the car, a ‘B’ report has been filed,” the HC noted. However, the HC noted that the car driver was not examined by the Tribunal.

“The driver of the car has chosen to stay away from the Tribunal and as a consequence, the best possible evidence was unavailable to the Tribunal to ascertain as to who was responsible for the accident. The evidence on record also indicates that the accident occurred at a time when the Cauvery riots were taking place and given this background, the Tribunal, in my view, was justified in holding that both the owner of the car and rider of the motorcycle had contributed equally to the accident.”

The HC therefore held that the apportionment of negligence at 50:50 cannot be found fault with. The HC said that the compensation awarded was also proper and dismissed the appeals filed by both the insurance company and the motorcycle riders.