The Kerala High Court has increased the compensation payable to a young accident victim, holding that a mere traffic violation-like carrying two pillion riders on a motorcycle-cannot automatically reduce a claimant’s compensation unless it is clearly proven to have contributed to the accident.
Justice Jobin Sebastian delivered the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by Bineesh, who sought higher compensation for injuries suffered in a 2011 road accident.
Background of the Case
The accident occurred on September 3, 2011, when Bineesh was riding a motorcycle along the Sakthan Thampuran–Kattukkaran public road in Thrissur district. According to his claim, a jeep allegedly driven rashly and negligently hit his motorcycle at Kattukkaran Junction, throwing him and the pillion riders onto the road.
Bineesh suffered serious injuries, including a fracture of both bones in his right leg, along with multiple wounds.
The case was originally heard by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Thrissur, which found the jeep driver primarily responsible but also blamed Bineesh partly because two pillion riders were on the motorcycle.
Tribunal’s Award and the Dispute
In its award dated October 30, 2018, the Tribunal fixed total compensation at ₹1,84,800, with 8% interest, but deducted 20% for contributory negligence due to the presence of two pillion riders. This brought the payable amount down to ₹1,47,840.
Unhappy with both the deduction and the compensation amount, Bineesh approached the High Court seeking enhancement.
Court Observations on Compensation
The High Court found several issues in how the Tribunal calculated compensation.
Notional income should be higher
Bineesh claimed he was a welder earning ₹7,500 per month, but the Tribunal fixed his income at ₹4,500 due to lack of proof.
However, the High Court noted that since the accident happened in 2011, the Tribunal should have fixed the notional income at ₹8,000 per month, relying on the Supreme Court’s approach in similar cases.
“The Tribunal ought to have assessed the notional monthly income… at Rs.8,000,” the court observed.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Orders Special Exam for BSc Student Denied Admit Card Due to Portal Error
Disability reduction was unjustified
Bineesh produced a disability certificate showing 13% permanent disability, but the Tribunal reduced it to 10% without a clear reason.
The High Court rejected this approach, saying that if the Tribunal doubted the percentage, it should have referred him to a Medical Board rather than cutting it down mechanically.
“If the Tribunal had any doubt… the appropriate course… was to refer the petitioner to a Medical Board… rather than arbitrarily reducing the percentage,” the judge noted.
Using 13% disability, monthly income ₹8,000, and multiplier 18 (as Bineesh was 22 at the time), the court recalculated compensation for permanent disability at ₹2,24,640, granting an additional ₹1,32,840 under this head.
Loss of earnings period increased
The Tribunal had granted loss of earnings only for six months, but the High Court found that Bineesh deserved compensation for at least eight months, given his injuries and hospitalisation.
This resulted in an additional ₹37,000 under loss of earnings.
Higher amounts for pain and loss of amenities
The court also increased compensation for:
- Pain and suffering: additional ₹35,000
- Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life: additional ₹35,000
Read also:- Unrecognised Madarsa Cannot Be Shut Down for Lack of Approval Alone: Allahabad High Court
The court clarified that even if the claim petition mentioned a smaller amount under a particular head, the Tribunal and court are expected to award “just and reasonable” compensation.
“Strict rules of pleadings are not applicable in motor accident claims,” the bench observed.
A major issue was whether Bineesh should be blamed for contributory negligence merely because two pillion riders were travelling on the motorcycle.
The High Court made it clear that while carrying more than one pillion rider is a violation of law, it does not automatically mean the rider caused or contributed to the accident.
“The mere fact… though a violation… cannot, by itself, give rise to a presumption of contributory negligence,” the court said.
The judge stressed that contributory negligence must be supported by evidence showing a direct link-such as loss of control or imbalance due to extra passengers.
In this case, the court found no such evidence. It also noted that police had registered the case against the jeep driver, and even the Tribunal had rejected the insurer’s claim that the motorcycle was on the wrong side.
As a result, the High Court set aside the 20% deduction and held that the insurer must satisfy the award in full.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Orders Special Exam for BSc Student Denied Admit Card Due to Portal Error
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Kerala High Court enhanced the compensation by ₹2,39,840, with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition until deposit.
However, the court excluded interest for 304 days, which was the delay period in filing the appeal, as previously directed.
The insurance company was ordered to deposit the enhanced amount with interest and proportionate costs before the Tribunal within three months, after which the amount is to be disbursed to Bineesh as per law.
Case Title: Bineesh v. Mathew Joseph & Ors.
Case No.: MACA No. 1962 of 2020
Decision Date: 12 January 2026
