Read Time: 06 minutes

When the insurer is not able to prove the contributory negligence of the claimant, then the insurer is bound to pay insurance, held the Karnataka High Court recently.

In this regard, the order by Justice Natraj Rangaswamy avers,

"In absence of any material to establish that three persons riding on a motorcycle itself constituted contributory negligence, the insurer cannot contend that it was exonerated from the liability to pay compensation."

This pertinent observation came in while the Single Judge was hearing an appeal moved by the United India Assurance Company Limited challenging the order passed by a Tribunal, that directed payment of compensation in a motor vehicle accident case.

The insurer was ordered to pay Rs 8.1 lakh to the family members of one Syed Ghouse.

On November 11, 2011, Ghouse was riding pillion, however, around 8pm, the person who rode the motorcycle, lost control of it.

Due to this, Ghouse fell off the bike and sustained grievous injuries. He later succumbed to these injuries.

Subsequent to his death, his family members moved a claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking Rs 15.9 lakh as compensation.

The Tribunal, after considering various factors including his income, awarded a compensation of Rs 8.1 lakh with 6% interest, imposing the liability to pay the compensation on the vehicle insurer.

Unhappy with this order, the Insurance Company filed an appeal before the High Court.

The Insurance Company contended that there were three people were riding on the bike and this was in violation of the policy of the Company.

It was further submitted that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid driving licence, when the accident occurred. This, being contributory negligence on his part, the Company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

Opposing the appeal, the claimants relied on the Supreme Court Judgement in Mohammed Siddique and another v/s The National Insurance Company Limited which held that,

 “There must either be a causal connection between the violation and the accident or a causal connection between the violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim.”

The Court, after evaluating the arguments of the disputing parties, was of the view that insurer was not able to point out that the fact that three persons riding the motorcycle was the proximate cause of the accident.

"Learned counsel for the insurer was not able to point out any suggestions put to PW.1 about the three persons riding on the motorcycle itself being the proximate cause of the accident. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment imposing liability on the insurer to pay the compensation cannot be found fault with."

With these observations, the Bench went on to dismiss the appeal.

Case Name: United India Insurance Co vs Faizzuddin and ors

Click Here To Access Judgment