Platform or Rider? Examining Liability for Passenger Injuries in App-Based Bike Taxi Services in India

Liability for passenger injuries in app-based bike-taxi services cannot be resolved by selecting the rider or the platform as the only responsible party in every case. The rider has the immediate duty to drive safely. The owner may be responsible for maintenance, lawful use and insurance matters within the owner’s control. The insurer’s obligations depend on the policy and the statutory motor-insurance framework. The platform may have separate responsibilities where it undertakes safety-related functions, makes representations, controls risk-management systems or breaches applicable regulatory requirements. Each claim must be assessed according to the relevant duty, breach, causation and evidence. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, compulsory insurance, motor-accident compensation and consumer-protection principles already provide important legal tools. The Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines, 2025 further recognise the role of aggregators in a regulated transport system. The Karnataka High Court’s decision of 23 January 2026 is relevant to the legal status of motorcycles as transport vehicles and the consideration of permit applications, but it does not decide liability for every individual accident. State-specific rules and the facts of the particular ride remain important.[1] The Sani Krishna–Rapido dispute shows why clear insurance information and accessible claims procedures matter. News reports stated that the treatment costs exceeded ₹20 lakh and that the policy involved a reported ₹5 lakh cap; subsequent reporting said Rapido would facilitate processing of the entire eligible medical-expense claim through its insurance partner, subject to documentation and verification. These reports do not establish a general minimum passenger-insurance amount under the 2025 Guidelines or a final judicial finding of liability. The broader lesson is that the law and platform procedures should make support and information accessible after an accident. A balanced framework should not impose automatic liability on platforms for every injury, but it should not permit them to avoid responsibility for their own failures. Liability should follow the duty, the breach and the connection between the breach and the harm. Transparent passenger insurance, lawful vehicle verification, safety systems, preservation of trip records and prompt accident support can make the system fairer without treating a platform as the guarantor of every journey. As bike taxis continue to develop in India, innovation should be accompanied by a reliable route to information, insurance and compensation for passengers who are injured.

[1]ANI Techs. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, W.A. No. 906 of 2025 & connected matters (Karnataka High Ct. Jan. 23, 2026). [1]Motor Vehicles Act, No. 59 of 1988, §§ 93, 146–49, 164, 166 (India); Consumer Protection Act, No. 35 of 2019, §§ 2(11), 2(47) (India); Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines, 2025, supra note 3. [1]See Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 S.C.C. 1 (India) (discussing negligence principles); causation must be assessed in relation to the particular duty and alleged breach. [1]Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines, 2025, supra note 3, § 11.2 (requiring an inquiry into a passenger complaint within three days and communicating its outcome). [1]Anush S., supra note 2; Saumya Agrawal, supra note 12. These reports describe allegations and reported statements; they do not establish a judicial finding of platform liability. [1]See Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines, 2025, supra note 3 (requiring specified digital records relating to onboarded drivers); disclosure and preservation of trip-specific records remain subject to applicable law and privacy protections.