Clarifying that Section 129 MV Act Breaches Attract a 15% Deduction While Non-possession of Licence Alone Does Not
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CMA/1182/2023 of The Divisional Manager Vs S. Rajamani |
| CNR | HCMA010120142023 |
| Date of Registration | 05-06-2023 |
| Decision Date | 25-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | PARTLY ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | M. Jothiraman, J. |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | J. Nisha Banu, J. (concurring) |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | M. Jothiraman, J. and J. Nisha Banu, J. |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms High Court precedents on contributory negligence for non-helmet use |
| Type of Law | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Division Bench held that the eye-witness and post-mortem evidence established that death resulted from head injuries in a rash-driving accident, not from medicine consumption. Absence of a driving licence does not alone amount to contributory negligence (Sudhir Kumar Rana). However, non-use of helmet under Section 129 MV Act attracts 15% contributory negligence (Oriental Insurance Co. v. Indirani), reducing the loss-of-income award accordingly. Compensation calculation under Section 166 MV Act remains valid. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The deceased rider collided head-on with a rash-driving Bajaj Pulsar on 28 Aug 2016, was thrown into a 15-foot pit, remained unconscious overnight, was hospitalized, and died of head injuries on 11 Sep 2016. The FIR initially recorded the crash under Crime No.256/2016 and later registered an alleged consumption-of-tablets FIR (Crime No.264/2016). Claimants sued under Section 166 MV Act; insurer disputed liability and causation. |
| Citations | (2008) 12 SCC 436; 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC); SLP (Civil) No.25590/2014 (31.10.2017) |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- High Court reaffirms that failure to wear a helmet under Section 129 MV Act attracts a fixed 15% contributory negligence deduction.
- Absence of a valid driving licence alone does not constitute contributory negligence (per Sudhir Kumar Rana).
- Post-mortem findings and eye-witness testimony suffice to establish causal nexus for compensation under Section 166 MV Act.
- Insurer’s plea of medical negligence and alternate FIR does not override accident causation evidence.
- Compensation recalculation methodology under Section 166 (income, multipliers, deductions) remains authoritative.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Causation and Liability
- F.I.R. (Ex.P1) and eye-witness (PW5) proved rash and negligent driving by the offending rider.
- Post-mortem testimony (RW1, PW2) established death from head injury hemorrhage, not from medicine consumption.
-
Non-possession of Licence
- Reliance on Sudhir Kumar Rana: driving without licence is an offence but not contributory negligence absent rashness.
-
Helmet Non-use and Contributory Negligence
- Section 129 MV Act mandates helmet use. HC precedents (Oriental Ins. Co. v. Indirani; Rathna) impose 15% deduction for non-helmet use.
-
Compensation Quantum
- Monthly income fixed at Rs 9,450; multiplier 17; deduction 15% reduces “Loss of Income” head to Rs 16,38,630.
- Other heads (consortium, transport, funeral, estate loss) affirmed as reasoned by Tribunal.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (Insurance Company)
- Claim was wrongly filed under Section 166 instead of Section 163A.
- No proof of rash driving except the FIR; eye-witness reliability questioned.
- Deceased lacked helmet and valid licence—these factors warrant contributory negligence.
- Death resulted from medical negligence and tablet consumption, not accident.
Respondents (Claimants)
- Accident caused by rash driving of opposing two-wheeler, supported by eye-witness.
- Post-mortems confirm head injuries as cause of death.
- Non-possession of licence does not equate to negligence.
- Entitled to full compensation under Section 166; helmet use not pleaded.
Factual Background
On 28 August 2016, the deceased’s two-wheeler was struck by a rash-driven Bajaj Pulsar (Reg. TN 21 AE 2459) near Ariyur. Thrown into a 15-foot pit, he remained unconscious overnight and was retrieved next morning. Treated at Wallaja and Vellore hospitals, he died on 11 September 2016. An FIR under Section 174 CrPC alleged tablet consumption; claimants filed under Section 166 MV Act seeking compensation.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 129 MV Act: Mandatory helmet use; breach attracts contributory negligence.
- Section 166 MV Act: Remedy for death caused by motor accidents; tribunal’s award upheld.
- Section 163A MV Act: Benefit of structured claims; not applied.
- Section 174 CrPC: Unnatural death report; separate FIR on alleged tablet consumption.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh, (2008) 12 SCC 436
- Smt. Sarla Varma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Others, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC)
- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, SLP (Civil) No.25590 of 2014 (31.10.2017)
- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indirani, C.M.A.(MD)Nos.987 & 988 of 2014 (13.02.2017)
- Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S. Rathna, C.M.A.No.928 of 2022 (27.03.2024)