Ganeshan @ Ganesh vs Vilasini on 25 April, 2019
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
Abdul Salam (cites supra). As observed earlier, except
stating that 3 persons travelled in a motor vehicle, which is
prohibited, no specific finding was given to the effect that
travelling of three persons in a motor cycle was responsible
for the accident; hence we are of the view that the
conclusion in 2003 I M.L.J. 489 is to be confined to that
case. In other words, merely because there is violation of
the provisions of the Act or Rules or the policy conditions, it
is not automatic that in every case the principle of
contributory negligence is to be applied mechanically. As
rightly observed in the other Division Bench decision,
namely, M. Anandavalli Amma v. Arvind Eye Hospital (2002-
3 L.W. 710), unless there is evidence to prove that the
accident took place only because of such act that is
taking/travelling more persons in a motor cycle which
resulted in an accident, the owner of the other vehicle and
its insurer will be liable to pay compensation. To put it clear,
if the appellant-Transport Corporation is able to prove that it
is because of the addition of one more (third person in the
motor cycle instead of two), the accident occurred, the
position would be different. In other words, unless the owner
of the vehicle or the Insurance Company is able to prove
that the accident took place only because of such act that is
taking more persons than the prescribed number, the
owner/ Insurance Company will be liable to make good the
loss/compensation. In the case on hand the materials placed
before the Tribunal show that it was the bus driver who had
gone to the other side of the road, hit the motor cycle
thereby caused the accident. There is no evidence to show
that the accident occurred because of travelling of three
http://www.judis.nic.in
7
persons in the motor cycle. In the light of the above said
conclusion, we reject the contra argument made by the
learned counsel for the appellant.”