Bengaluru News: Karnataka High Court Rules Helmet Non-Use Shouldn't Significantly Reduce Compensation in Accident Cases

BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court recently ruled that while failing to wear a helmet, as mandated by Section 129(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, can be considered contributory negligence, it should not substantially diminish the compensation awarded to an accident claimant.

This ruling was made by a division bench comprising Justices K Somashekar and Chillakur Sumalatha while hearing an appeal filed by Sadath Ali Khan, a resident of Channapatna town in Ramanagara district. Khan was involved in a motorcycle accident on March 5, 2016, in Vaderahalli village, Ramanagara taluk, when a speeding car collided with his two-wheeler.

Khan sustained multiple injuries from the accident and subsequently sought compensation from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Ramanagara, claiming that he had incurred expenses of Rs 10 lakh for medical treatment and related costs. However, in a decision dated September 24, 2020, the tribunal awarded him Rs 5.6 lakh in compensation, noting that he was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident.

Khan appealed the tribunal's decision, arguing that he was earning Rs 35,000 per month before the accident but had lost his ability to work due to his injuries.

In its judgment, the High Court's division bench acknowledged that while the claimant's failure to wear a helmet was noted, it should not significantly impact his right to fair compensation. The bench explained that the concept of contributory negligence in motor vehicle accidents applies when the injured party's own negligence contributes to the accident or worsens the injuries. However, the focus should primarily be on the respondent's negligence in causing the accident.

"Wearing a helmet is indeed crucial for safety, but it should not be the sole factor in reducing the amount of compensation," the bench observed. They further argued that the penalty for not wearing a helmet—such as a Rs 1,000 fine or a three-month suspension of the driving license—should not justify a substantial reduction in the insurance claim amount.

The court deemed it unjust to reduce the compensation by 10%-15% solely based on the absence of protective headgear, reinforcing the principle that the primary concern in compensation cases should be the negligence of the party responsible for the accident.