Judgments related to Pillion Rider under MV Act

Judgments related to Pillion Rider under MV Act

 

 

Pillion rider Act Policy liability of IC death of pillion rider IC

disputed its liability on the ground that policy was statutory policy and it did not cover the risk of pillion rider statutory policy

covers the risk of TP only and it did not cover risk of pillion rider and gratuitous passenger

2003 ACJ 1 (SC), 2006 ACJ 1441 (SC), 2009 ACJ

104 (SC), For package policy, please refer 2017

ACJ 2512 (MP)

One of the two pillion riders injured Tribunal held that both drivers were negligent in causing accident and their respective blame being 75:25 between bus driver and moped whether

pillion rider is responsible for accident? Held ; yes as he had

violated traffic rules25% deducted from awarded amount – As same can be termed as violation of Section 128 of the MV Act. 2018 ACJ 1888 (HP)

2011 ACJ 1766 (MAD) and 2016 ACJ 1865 (Hyd) but

see 2013 ACJ 1227 ((HP), 2013 ACJ 2008 (MP),

2014 ACJ 1287 (Raj), 2014 ACJ 1762, 2014 ACJ

2425 (P&H), 2014 ACJ 2699 (Raj), 2014 ACJ 2808

(P&H), 2015 ACJ (P&H), 2016 ACJ 936 (P&H), 2016

ACJ 1273 (Cal)

Two pillion rider offending tractor dashed with the bike Rider

of bike could not see the tractor as same was not having head lights Tribunal exonerated rider of bike whether sustainable? Held; Yes Only because rider of bike had allowed, two pillion rider

to travel on the bike does not lead to infer that rider of bike had contributed in causing the accident.

2012 ACJ 2678(MP)2008

ACJ 393 (MP), 2017 ACJ

1758 (Kar), 2017 ACJ 2696 (All).

Mohammed Siddique v/s. NI Com. Ltd, AIR 2020 SC 520 –

at the most same is in violation of Section 128 of the M V Act, 1988 and Section 194C of the Amended M V Act.

Three Pillion rider, rider held negligent 2022 ACJ 1779 (Mad)

Three pillion riders – rider of the motorcycle held negligent to an extent of 25% 2022 ACJ 596

Act policy statutory policy pillion rider whether IC is liable held

– no such policy covers the TP risk only and not of pillion rider IC

held not liable

2003 ACJ 1 (SC), 2006 ACJ 1441 (SC), 2009 ACJ 104 (SC) But when extra premium is paid (package policy) to cover the risk of pillion rider IC is liable to pay to pillion rider also

2011 ACJ 2100(KAR)5Pillion rider of motor cycle package policy –

whether IC is liable. Held ; yes – as insured had paid premium to cover the damage to the vehicle and pillion rider

2011 ACJ 2100 (KAR)

Motor accident insurance claim deceased was travelling as a pillion rider fell down from the scooter and succumbed to the injuries claim repudiated by insurance company on ground that

deceased being a gratuitous passenger and insurance policy did not cover risk of injury or death of such passenger whether

pillion rider on a scooter would be a third party within the meaning of S. 147 of the Act held, liability of the insurance company in a case of this nature is not extended to a pillion

rider of the motor vehicle unless the requisite amount of premium is paid for covering his/her risk (ii) the legal obligation arising u/s. 147 of the Act cannot be extended to an injury or death of the owner of vehicle or the pillion rider (iii) the pillion rider in a two wheeler was not to be treated as a third party when the accident has taken place owing to rash and negligent riding of the scooter and not on the part of the driver of another vehicle

2008(7) SCC 428

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 S. 147, 157, 217 motor accident liability

of the Insurance Company towards third party two wheeler of respondent no. 5 was insured with the appellant company however, an endorsement regarding pillion rider was not included

in the Insurance Contract two wheeler was sold to respondent no. 1 during the period of availability of insurance cover sale was not intimated to the Insurance Company as a result of an accident, the pillion rider died compensation awarded by Tribunal held,

the Act of 1988 is applicable to the case as the accident took place after the commencement of the Act, 1988 the statutory insurance policy did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to gratuitous passenger therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation for the death of the pillion rider further, failure to intimation for the transfer of the vehicle would not effect third parties claim for compensation

2006(4) SCC 404 –U.I.I.Com v/s Tilak Singh 8U/s 147(1)package

Policy pillion rider liability of IC is sought to be avoided on the ground that no additional premium has been paid to cover risk of

pillion rider IRDA in its clarification circular mentioned that passenger carried in private vehicle and pillion riders are covered under the terms and conditions of Slandered Motor Package Policy When vehicle is covered under the package policy IC is to

be held liable

2011 ACJ 2527 (Ker)

Meaning of 'Unnamed Passenger' would mean pillion rider and not the driver of two wheeler.

2014 ACJ 101 (Chh)

Motor accident insurance claim deceased was travelling as a pillion rider fell down from the scooter and succumbed to the injuries claim repudiated by insurance company on ground that

deceased being a gratuitous passenger and insurance policy did not cover risk of injury or death of such passenger whether

pillion rider on a scooter would be a third party within the meaning of S. 147 of the Act held, liability of the insurance company in a case of this nature is not extended to a pillion

rider of the motor vehicle unless the requisite amount of premium is paid for covering his/her risk

(ii) the legal obligation arising u/s. 147 of the Act cannot be extended to an injury or death of the owner of vehicle or the pillion rider

(iii) the pillion rider in a two wheeler was not to be treated as a

third party when the accident has taken place owing to rash and negligent riding of the scooter and not on the part of the driver of another vehicle

2008(7) SCC 428.

Whether the pillion rider can be held negligent in causing the accident? Held No.

2017 ACJ 2292 (P&H)

Owner of the motorcycle was riding as pillion – accident – claim as third party, since IP is covered by comprehensive policy – whether sustainable? Held. No.

2018 ACJ 796 (Mad)