Accident Need Not Involve Another Vehicle: Bombay High Court Rules Saree-Entanglement Fall as Compensable Motor Accident, Overturns MACT Denial

“It Is Not Necessary That Another Vehicle Must Be Involved to Term a Mishap an Accident”—Bombay High Court allowed a compensation appeal by a grieving family whose claim had been dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Kolhapur. The deceased woman had died in a tragic but unusual incident—her saree had become entangled in the rear wheel of a motorcycle, causing it to skid and fall. The MACT rejected the claim on the premise that the incident was not a “motor vehicle accident” under law as no other vehicle was involved and the accident occurred due to the husband's negligence.

Justice Shivkumar Dige rejected this narrow interpretation and decisively held that the Tribunal had committed an error in law. Observing that the Motor Vehicles Act does not restrict compensation to collisions between vehicles, the Court ruled:
“It is not necessary to have involvement of another vehicle to cause an accident like in present case... Admittedly, the deceased was going on motorcycle and her saree got entangled in the rear wheel of the motorcycle and she fell on the road. It shows that the death of the deceased was an accident.”

The judgment sets a vital precedent for understanding ‘accident’ beyond the narrow confines of collisions, especially in rural India where such incidents are not uncommon.

“The Use of the Motorcycle Directly Led to the Fatal Incident—That Itself Triggers the Insurer’s Liability”: Court Finds Insurance Company Fully Liable

The incident occurred on 3rd August 2011 when the deceased was riding pillion on a motorcycle along with her husband and their two minor sons. While en route from Chafodi to Waghapur, her saree got caught in the rear wheel chain. The sudden jamming of the wheel caused the bike to skid, throwing all four passengers to the ground. She sustained a fatal head injury and died despite being taken to the hospital.

The MACT dismissed the compensation claim citing two reasons: first, that the incident didn’t involve another vehicle, and second, that there was a breach of policy because four persons, including two minors, were riding on the bike.

The High Court firmly rejected both contentions. It clarified:
“The term accident is not defined in the Motor Vehicles Act. As per LexisNexis, ‘accident’ means a sudden unforeseen or unexpected event causing harm to a person… Accident includes collision, overturning, or slipping. The use of the vehicle directly caused the mishap, hence the incident was very much an accident in the legal sense.”

On the question of overloading, the Court found that both children were aged around three and travelling with their parents, which could not be treated as a material breach to defeat a rightful claim.

“Even a Family of Four on a Two-Wheeler Does Not Automatically Breach Policy Terms”: Court Recognizes Realities of Rural Mobility

The Court addressed the insurance company’s claim that four individuals on a bike—allegedly a policy violation—disentitled the family from any compensation. But Justice Dige noted the social and practical realities of rural life and transportation:

“Though four persons were travelling on the bike, it has come on record that the deceased, her husband and their two minor children around three years of age were travelling together. So it cannot be considered as breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.”

It was a sensitive acknowledgment that rural families often have no choice but to travel in such configurations. Moreover, the Court highlighted that the deceased was a pillion rider, and pillion coverage was specifically included under the insurance policy in question.

“Milk Business Income Proven with Documentary Evidence—Claimants Entitled to Compensation for Economic Dependency”: Court Accepts Earning Capacity

The deceased was contributing to her household by selling milk, a fact supported by oral and documentary evidence. Her mother-in-law testified that she earned ₹4,000 per month through milk sales to a local dairy. The dairy society’s secretary confirmed her membership and income ranging from ₹3,700–₹3,800 per month.

The Court accepted this and held:
“It has been proved that the deceased was supplying milk to the milk dairy... considering this fact, I am considering ₹2,000 as monthly income of the deceased.”

Based on this, the High Court awarded a total compensation of ₹8,32,800, including loss of income, future prospects, loss of estate, consortium, and funeral expenses. After deducting ₹50,000 already awarded by the MACT, the Court granted an enhanced compensation of ₹7,82,800 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

“Insurance Company Shall Deposit Compensation Within 8 Weeks—Claimants Permitted to Withdraw Without Restrictions”: Final Directions of the Court

Justice Shivkumar Dige concluded with a firm directive:

“The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount of compensation along with accrued interest thereon within eight weeks from the receipt of this order... The claimants are permitted to withdraw the deposited amount along with accrued interest.”

This ruling not only reinstates compensation in a rejected claim but also clarifies that fatal accidents resulting from entanglements, slips, or overturns without the involvement of a second vehicle are very much within the definition of “accident” under law.

Date of Decision: 23 July 2025