KOCHI: Non-wearing of helmet cannot be the reason for fixing negligence on the part of a motorcycle rider in the event of an accident, the Kerala High Court has held.
While not wearing a helmet is an offence under Motor Vehicles Act, it cannot be the basis for fixing negligence on the part of the rider, a division bench comprising justices PR Ramachandra Menon and Anil K Narendran held.
The court considered an appeal filed by PJ Jose of Vadakkekkaran in Kottayam seeking enhancement of the compensation of Rs4.76 lakh as the compensation for the death of his son when the motorcycle he was riding collided with a jeep on May 11, 2007. A motor accident tribunal had fixed 25 per cent contributory negligence on the part of the rider citing non-wearing of helmet.
Ruling against such fixing of negligence, the judgment authored by justice Ramachandra Menon said, "We find it difficult to agree with the proposition that non-wearing of 'Helmet', though an offence under the relevant provisions of the MV Act, could be taken as a ground to fix contributory negligence on the part of the rider. What is to be considered with regard to the apportionment of negligence is whether the party concerned had any role/part in causing or contributing to the accident. In other words, the consequence pursuant to the accident is not a circumstance to be weighed for fixation of negligence in causing the accident.
While not wearing a helmet is an offence under Motor Vehicles Act, it cannot be the basis for fixing negligence on the part of the rider, a division bench comprising justices PR Ramachandra Menon and Anil K Narendran held.
The court considered an appeal filed by PJ Jose of Vadakkekkaran in Kottayam seeking enhancement of the compensation of Rs4.76 lakh as the compensation for the death of his son when the motorcycle he was riding collided with a jeep on May 11, 2007. A motor accident tribunal had fixed 25 per cent contributory negligence on the part of the rider citing non-wearing of helmet.
Ruling against such fixing of negligence, the judgment authored by justice Ramachandra Menon said, "We find it difficult to agree with the proposition that non-wearing of 'Helmet', though an offence under the relevant provisions of the MV Act, could be taken as a ground to fix contributory negligence on the part of the rider. What is to be considered with regard to the apportionment of negligence is whether the party concerned had any role/part in causing or contributing to the accident. In other words, the consequence pursuant to the accident is not a circumstance to be weighed for fixation of negligence in causing the accident.
With regard to the non-wearing of 'Helmet' and resultant death because of the head injury, it is only a 'consequence' after the accident. Because of the non-wearing of 'Helmet', the injury sustained to the head became fatal, leading to the death of the deceased. It is true that, had the deceased been wearing a 'Helmet', probably his life could have been saved and the gravity of the injury would not have been this much severe, to have resulted in the death of the deceased.
But the consequence because of the non-wearing of 'Helmet' was not the reason for knocking down the rider of the motor cycle by the driver of the jeep which was coming from the opposite side and this being the position, negligence cannot be fixed on the shoulders of the rider of the vehicle merely for not wearing the 'Helmet'."Further, the court pointed out that the contribution on the part of the rider with regard to the accident was not the non-wearing of helmet but negligence on his part to keep to his side of the road.
Comments
Post a Comment