Not Wearing Protective Headgear By Motorcyclist Cannot Negate Right To Compensation: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that failure to wear protective headgear as required by Section 129(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, though constitutes a contributory negligence, will not drastically affect the compensation awarded to a claimant who has suffered.A division bench of Justice K Somashekhar and Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha said this while deciding an appeal filed by Sadath...
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that failure to wear protective headgear as required by Section 129(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, though constitutes a contributory negligence, will not drastically affect the compensation awarded to a claimant who has suffered.
A division bench of Justice K Somashekhar and Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha said this while deciding an appeal filed by Sadath Ali Khan seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. The tribunal had awarded Rs 5,61,600 as compensation and in doing so considered that the claimant was found travelling without wearing a helmet and thereby violated the Notification issued by the Transport Authority under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Rules.
The court said “If a rider does not wear protective headgear as mandated, it could be argued that they contributed to the severity of their injuries. However, not wearing protective headgear does not negate the right to compensation.”
Stating that the principle of "just compensation" requires that while contributory negligence can be a factor in determining the amount of compensation, it should not result in an unjust reduction and compensation must be fair and reasonable, reflecting the actual losses and the nature of injuries sustained.
The court expressed, “The principle of just compensation necessitates that courts award damages that are fair and equitable, considering all circumstances without unduly penalising the claimant for not wearing a helmet. The primary focus remains on ensuring that victims receive adequate compensation for their injuries and losses.”
Khan, claimed that he was a Manufacturer of Wooden Toys and earning a sum of Rs.35,000 per month. Due to the said accident, he had lost his monthly income. He had spent a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs towards his medical treatment and other incidental expenses thus he had sought that the compensation be increased.
The bench interfering with the order of the tribunal noted that under Section 129(a), the offence of not wearing protective headgear attracts a fine of Rs.1,000/- or suspension of the driving licence for three months. Given this relatively minor penalty, reducing the insurance claim amount by 10% to 15% due to the non-wearing of protective headgear is unjust.
Accordingly, it modified the tribunal order and enhanced the compensation to Rs.6,80,200. It said “The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation. Keeping in view of the scope of Section 129 of the Act and in a given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the entire liability shall be fastened on respondent No.2-insurance company.”
Appearance: Advocate Raju S for Appellant.
Advocate B. Pradeep FOR R2
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 379
Case Title: Sadat Ali Khan AND Noor Ahmed Sayyed & ANR
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3459 OF 2021