Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.19 seconds)Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State ... vs Abdul Salam, Jameela, Laila, Sainabha, ... on 29 January, 2003
9. A plain reading of the above provision, it is clear that triple riding is prohibited on a two wheeler. When a statutory bar imposed under the Act, it is not made to be ignored by the riders of two wheelers, but to be followed in their own interest and safety. Though it has come in the evidence of PW-2 who claims to be an eye-witness to the accident that on the fateful day the driver of the accident lorry drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner resulting in accident, but it is common understanding that one will certainly feel discomforted when riding a two wheeler with two pillion riders and naturally his balance over the vehicle will be limited by reason of accommodating two pillion riders and he will not have that ease and comfort of riding with one pillion rider. In the instant case, it is admitted that there was triple riding on the scooter. Under those circumstances, even in the absence of independent evidence adduced by the Insurance Company that the accident had occurred due to triple riding, it can be reasonable presumed that the rider of the scooter was discomforted by reasons of allowing two pillion riders and thus contributed in causing the accident. Had he been riding the scooter with one pillion rider, probably he would have averted the accident by swerving the scooter to the extreme left side, but could not do so probably, his hands and legs movement was limited due to the congestion. In such view of the matter, the culpability in causing the accident is fixed at 75% on the part of the driver of the accident lorry and 25% on the part of the rider of the scooter. I am fortified in my view by the decision Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v. Abdul Salam (supra), wherein at Paras 10 and 11, it was held thus:
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
1