In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed an appeal by IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company and upheld the compensation of ₹53.66 lakh awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) to the family of the deceased. Justice Sudipti Sharma clarified that if a vehicle is insured under a comprehensive (package) insurance policy, the risk associated with the pillion rider (the person sitting behind the driver) also falls within the scope of the insurance company’s liability.
According to the case details, on May 26, 2021, Major Singh was traveling as a pillion rider on his brother Varinder Singh’s motorcycle from Zirakpur towards Rajpura. While overtaking a car parked on the roadside near ‘Lucky Furniture’ in Zirakpur, the motorcycle suddenly veered towards the middle of the road. At that moment, an unidentified tanker approaching from behind collided with the motorcycle. Following the collision, the motorcycle crashed into a railing, and Major Singh sustained severe injuries. He was rushed to the hospital, where doctors declared him dead. The tanker driver fled the scene after the incident.
Compensation Awarded Based on Evidence
The family of the deceased claimed that Major Singh ran a snacks bar in Damanheri village and earned approximately ₹50,000 per month. They had sought compensation from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal ordered the payment of ₹53.66 lakh as compensation, along with interest at the rate of seven percent per annum.
The insurance company argued before the High Court that the deceased was a pillion rider on the motorcycle and could not be considered a ‘third party.’ The company further contended that the policy was merely an ‘Act-only’ policy; therefore, it bore no liability. However, the Court found that the insurance policy on record was a ‘package policy’ and the company had never proven before the Tribunal that the risk concerning the pillion rider was excluded from the policy coverage. High Court Upholds Compensation
The court also held that the accident resulted from the combined negligence of both the unknown tanker driver and the motorcyclist. The motorcyclist had himself admitted to turning towards the middle of the road without adequately checking for traffic approaching from behind. Consequently, the deceased—who was merely a pillion rider—bore no responsibility for the accident.
The High Court observed that in cases of composite negligence, the victim or their dependents are entitled to recover the full compensation amount from any one of the liable parties. On this basis, the insurance company’s appeal was dismissed, and the liability imposed upon it was upheld.
