The presence of two pillion riders does not automatically imply contributory negligence in a motor accident claim unless evidence demonstrates a direct connection to the accident.

JUDGMENT :

JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J.

1. The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.2536/2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 03.09.2011.

2. The case of the petitioner/appellant in the original petition is that, on 03.09.2011, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-8-AD-531 along the Sakthan Thampuran–Kattukkaran public road, with two passengers on the pillion, and when the motorcycle reached Kattukkaran Junction, a jeep bearing registration No. KL-9-B-2930, driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle. Due to the impact, the petitioner as well as the pillion riders were thrown onto the road and sustained serious injuries.

3. The owner and driver of the jeep were arrayed as the 1st and 2nd respondents, respectively, whereas the insurer was arrayed as the 3rd respondent.

4. In response to the notice issued, all the respondents entered appearance and filed separate written statements. The 1st and 2nd respondents contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner himself and that he was therefore not entitled to any compensation.

5. The 3rd respondent insurance company filed a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. It was contended that the petitioner was riding the motorcycle with two pillion riders and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner. However, the 3rd respondent admitted that the jeep involved in the accident was covered by a valid insurance policy.

6. During trial, the documents produced by the petitioner were marked as Exts.A1 to A19. From the side of the respondents, a copy of the insurance policy was produced and marked as Ext.B1.

7. After trial, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred mainly due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing registration No.KL-9-B-2930 by the 2nd respondent, and being the insurer, the 3rd respondent was held liable to pay compensation. Nevertheless, the Tribunal found that by carrying two pillion riders on the motorcycle, the petitioner was guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 20%. The total compensation was quantified at Rs.1,84,800/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, along with proportionate costs. After deducting 20% towards contributory negligence, the petitioner was held entitled to Rs.1,47,840/-. Dissatisfied with both the quantum of compensation awarded and the finding of contributory negligence, the petitioner has preferred the present appeal.

8. I heard Sri.Nimod A.R. the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri. P. K. Manoj Kumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is grossly inadequate and does not compensate the actual loss and damages suffered by the petitioner. It was contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the petitioner at a low figure and consequently awarded meagre compensation under the heads of permanent disability and loss of earnings. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the seriousness of the injuries and the prolonged treatment undergone by the petitioner, and awarded only nominal amounts under the heads of pain and sufferings