Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation

“Pain and Suffering Does Not Survive After Death”, In a reportable judgment Madras High Court partly allowed the insurer’s appeal and dismissed the claimant’s cross objection, holding that compensation awarded towards “pain and suffering” cannot survive the death of the injured claimant. The Division Bench comprising Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu reduced the compensation payable from ₹25,18,272/- to ₹23,68,272/- while affirming 25% contributory negligence on the deceased for statutory violations including non-wearing of helmet and absence of driving licence.

The Court clarified that while the accident was primarily caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the deceased’s own lapses had a legally recognizable nexus with the fatal consequences.

The case arose from a road accident that occurred on 31.12.2017. The deceased, Mr. Sathik Basha, aged 19 years and employed as a mechanic, was riding a motorcycle when an Eicher Van dashed against him from behind near Veera Palayam. He sustained severe head injuries affecting multiple regions of the brain, along with fractures in the chest, thigh and leg bones. Intracranial bleeding led to loss of consciousness and prolonged hospitalization.

The deceased underwent three major surgeries and remained under continuous treatment until he succumbed to his injuries on 24.11.2018. Initially, a claim petition was filed seeking ₹30,00,000/-, which was later amended to ₹50,00,000/- after his death.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Erode, assessed total compensation at ₹33,57,696/- and, after deducting 25% towards contributory negligence, awarded ₹25,18,272/- with 9% interest. The insurer challenged the quantum under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, while the claimant filed a cross objection under Order XLI Rule 22 CPC seeking enhancement.

Court on Medical Causation: “Death Directly Attributable to Accident”

The insurer contended that the death was not the immediate result of the accident and questioned the medical expenses awarded. Rejecting this argument, the High Court observed:

“It is evident that the deceased sustained grievous injuries, including severe head injuries and multiple fractures, which ultimately resulted in his death.”

The Bench further held:

“The death of the deceased is directly attributable to the injuries sustained in the accident and not due to any intervening cause.”

Noting the prolonged hospitalization and three major surgeries, the Court confirmed the award of ₹20,54,496/- towards medical expenses as just and reasonable.

Contributory Negligence: Statutory Violations Cannot Be Ignored

A central issue before the Court was whether fixing 25% contributory negligence on the deceased was justified.

During cross-examination, P.W.1, the mother of the deceased, admitted that her son did not possess a valid driving licence, that the motorcycle did not have proper registration and insurance, and that he was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident. These admissions were supported by Ex.A4, the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report.

The Court observed:

“The aforesaid admissions and documentary evidence clearly establish violation of the mandatory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the part of the deceased.”

While acknowledging that the accident occurred primarily due to the rash driving of the Eicher Van, the Bench emphasized the legal consequence of helmet violation:

“The lapses on the part of the deceased, particularly the non-wearing of helmet, had a direct nexus with the grievous head injuries sustained by him, which ultimately culminated in his death.”

On this reasoning, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding that fixing 25% contributory negligence was “just, reasonable and based on cogent evidence.”

“Claims Towards Pain and Suffering Do Not Survive Upon Death”

The most significant modification in the award concerned the grant of ₹2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering.

Relying on precedents including National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sivabakkiyam (Deceased) and The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manohar (Deceased), the Court reiterated a settled principle:

“Claims towards pain, suffering and personal injuries do not survive upon the death of the injured.”

Since the original claim was for personal injuries and the injured later died, the Bench held that the compensation awarded under the head “pain and suffering” was legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, ₹2,00,000/- was deducted from the total compensation.

Modified Compensation and Final Outcome

After removing the amount awarded towards pain and suffering, the total compensation was reduced from ₹33,57,696/- to ₹31,57,696/-. Upon applying 25% deduction towards contributory negligence, the final payable compensation stood reduced from ₹25,18,272/- to ₹23,68,272/-.

All other heads, including loss of income, funeral expenses, medical bills, filial consortium, attender charges and transportation, were confirmed.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Insurance Company was partly allowed. The Cross Objection seeking enhancement was dismissed. The Court made no order as to costs.

This ruling reiterates that statutory safety violations such as non-wearing of helmet can significantly impact compensation in fatal motor accident claims when a direct nexus with injuries is established. Equally, it reinforces the principle that personal claims for pain and suffering extinguish with the death of the injured, unless converted into a distinct claim under the fatal accident framework.

Date of Decision: 10.02.2026