Mere Non-Wearing Of Helmet Doesn't Enable Plea Of Contributory Negligence Without Direct Nexus To Accident: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently upheld an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, fixing a contributory negligence of 7% on a deceased man who was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident. Though the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation argued that it was the percentage of contributory negligence should have been enhanced on account of non-wearing of helmet, the bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that mere violation of a statutory provision does not give a right to the tort feasor to plead contributory negligence unless it is proved that the violation had a nexus with the accident. “It is a well-settled principle that mere violation of statutory provisions, such as non-wearing of a helmet, does not ipso facto confer a right upon the tortfeasor to plead contributory negligence, unless it is established that such violation had a direct nexus with the occurrence of the accident,” the court remarked. The court remarked that the object of wearing a helmet was to minimise or prevent head injury and not to prevent the accident from happening. The court thus observed that non-wearing of the helmet could not be construed as a causative factor for the accident itself. “It is also pertinent to note that the object of wearing a helmet is primarily a safety measure intended to minimize or prevent the severity of head injuries. It does not, in any manner, prevent the happening of the accident. Therefore, the non wearing of a helmet cannot be construed as a causative factor for the accident itself,” the court said. The court was hearing an appeal filed by the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation challenging an order of MACT, Dindigul. Background The deceased was riding his two-wheeler on the Usilampatti-Patelangur Road when he was hit by a bus belonging to the Transport Corporation, which came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and despite treatment, he succumbed to his injuries. The dependents of the claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs 80,00,000. The tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Corporation bus driver. The tribunal fixed % contributory negligence on the deceased for not wearing a helmet, fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs 18,000 and awarded a total compensation of Rs 28,85,790. During the appeal, the transport corporation argued that the deceased himself had contributed to the accident and that the 7% fixation of contributory negligence was erroneous. The corporation argued that the tribunal should have fixed at least 20% contributory negligence. The corporation also argued that the fixation of monthly income at Rs. 18,000, in the absence of any documentary proof was not in accordance with law. The dependants of the deceased, on the other hand, submitted that the FIR and the deposition of the eyewitness clearly shows the negligence on the part of the bus driver. It was submitted that the tribunal had rightly fixed contributory negligence and fixed the reasonable notional income, considering the nature of work of the deceased. On perusing the deposition of the witnesses, the court noted that the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant corporation bus. The court also noted that the FIR had been registered against the bus driver and the departmental proceedings also culminated against him. Though the corporation stressed that the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of accident, the court noted that the accident was not due to the non-wearing of helmet, but due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The court thus noted that the tribunal had taken a balanced view and enhancement of contributory negligence was not warranted. The court also found no perversity or illegality in the order of the tribunal in fixing the monthly income at Rs 18,000. Thus, finding no merit in the appeal, the court dismissed the same. Counsel for Appellant: Mr.S.Micheal Heldon Kumar Counsel for Respondents: Mr.M.Manivelpandian Case Title: The Managing Director v Mariyammal and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 160 Case No: C.M.A.(MD).No.445 of 2026Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Mere Non-Wearing Of Helmet Doesn't Enable Plea Of Contributory Negligence Without Direct Nexus To Accident: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags