Mumbai: In a motor accident compensation claim that placed a 15-year-old injured son against his mother, the registered owner of the two-wheeler, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that both the mother, Madhavi Tavale, and Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited were jointly and severally liable to pay the son approximately Rs 40 lakh (including interest) in compensation. The Worli resident who suffered permanent weakness on his left side due to the injuries was riding pillion with his cousin when the two-wheeler skidded while negotiating a curve, and both were thrown off and hit a roadside cement barrier. The tribunal directed the insurer—which held a valid policy for the vehicle at the time of the accident—to deposit the entire award amount.The tribunal rejected the insurer’s argument that there was collusion because the owner was the victim’s mother and the rider was his cousin. The tribunal found no evidence of fabrication and held that the medical record created a direct chain between the accident, severe head injury and later neurological disability. The tribunal granted the insurer liberty to pursue other independent legal remedies, but explicitly denied any right of recovery under the current award, as no policy breach had been proven.The tribunal also rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift blame to potholes, loose sand or road conditions. The tribunal held, “The presence of loose sand, potholes or an uneven surface does not grant immunity to a rider who fails to keep the motorcycle under control.” The tribunal added, “Both indicate that the road surface required a rider to slow down and exercise heightened care.”The tribunal accepted that non-wearing of a helmet was unsafe and unlawful, but said the insurer had not proved through medical evidence that a helmet would have prevented or materially reduced the injuries in this particular accident.Manish Tavale moved the tribunal through his father in Nov 2019. The claim arose from an accident on March 23, 2019, near Bapdev Mandir at Kalote on the old Mumbai–Pune Highway in Raigad district. Manish Tavale, then 15 years old, was travelling as a pillion rider on a TVS Jupiter being ridden by his cousin Shubham Dhamapurkar.Manish was first taken to Gandhi Hospital, Panvel, where records showed that he was admitted unconscious and gasping. The tribunal noted that the medical papers showed severe head injury, bone fractures, and neurological complications. He required intubation, ventilator support and intensive-care treatment.The tribunal found that the accident and the involvement of the insured vehicle were proved through police papers, hospital records, the registration record and insurance documents.The insurer had argued that the accident took place because of a defective road and that the state or road-maintaining authority should have been made a party. The tribunal rejected that objection and held that the injured claimant could proceed against the negligent rider, owner and insurer. The tribunal said, “Even where defective road conditions constitute a concurrent cause, the rider remains liable if his failure to regulate speed or control materially contributed to the accident.”The tribunal further observed, “High speed is not an abstract numerical concept; a speed may be negligent even if not excessive in kilometres per hour when the road is curved, sandy, uneven or otherwise hazardous.”The insurer had also argued that Manish was not wearing a helmet and that compensation should be reduced. The tribunal accepted that non-wearing of a helmet was unsafe and unlawful, but said the insurer had not proved through medical evidence that a helmet would have prevented or materially reduced the injuries in this particular accident. The tribunal held, “Non-wearing of a helmet was undoubtedly unsafe and unlawful. Yet a finding of contributory negligence affecting civil compensation cannot rest upon a general presumption alone.”The tribunal added, “In the absence of such evidence, no deduction from the compensation can be made merely because the applicant was not wearing a helmet.”The insurance company also raised a defence that the rider did not have a valid driving licence and that the owner had breached the policy conditions. The tribunal held, “Mere absence of a driving licence from the claimant’s record does not prove that no licence existed.”The tribunal directed that 30% of the compensation, with accrued interest and costs, be transferred to Manish’s bank account upon verification. The remaining 70% is to be kept in fixed deposits in a nationalised bank for staggered periods of one to five years, with quarterly interest payable to him. The tribunal barred loans, advances, liens or premature encashment without permission, except for genuine medical, educational, rehabilitation, housing or livelihood needs.
