The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of contributory negligence in the context of a head-on collision, emphasizing the need for evidence to show the entire negligence resting on the driver of the offending vehicle. Additionally, the judgment highlights the principle of awarding just and reasonable compensation, re-evaluating the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

G.M. AKBAR ALI,J.,

1. Being aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.9,76,300/- in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.3 of 2002; Rs.14,87,740/- in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.4 of 2002 and Rs.5,00,000/- in M.A.C.T.O.No.686 of 2004, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeals.

2. All the appeals arising out of an accident occurred on 3.8.2001. The 1st respondent in C.M.A.No.1937 of 2007 and the 1st respondent in CMA No.1938 of 2007, who are husband and wife were travelling in the 2nd respondent Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus ( hereinafter called as "Transport Corporation) bearing registration No:TN07N 9394 from Bangalore to Kumbakonam. On the Villupuram Panruti Road, in the early hours of 3.8.2001, when a lorry bearing Registration No.TN51Z 9799, belonging to 3rd respondent and insured with the appellant, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit against the bus. As a result, both the vehicles collided causing not only severe multiple injuries to the respondents 1 and 2 but also caused the death of six months old child in the womb of the 1st respondent.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 filed three motor accident claims, before the Tribunal at Cuddalore. MACTOP 3/2002 was filed by the 1st respondent for the injuries caused to her. She had claimed Rs.10,00,000/-. MACOTP 4/2002 was filed by the 2nd respondent for the injuries caused to him and he had claimed Rs.15,00,000/-. MACTOP NO.686/2004 was filed by both the respondents for the death of six months old still born child in the womb of the 1st respondent.

4. The appellant and the Transport Corporation filed their counter statements throwing the negligence on the part of the opposite side vehicles and also resisted the quantum of compensation.

5. All the three claim petitions were taken together and a common order was passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Court cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore.

6. The claimants were examined to speak about the accident. The driver of the Transport Corporation Bus was also examined to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. To prove the injuries and disabilities, doctors were also examined. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the negligence was on the part of the lorry driver and therefore, fastened the statutory liability on the Insurance Company.

7. While deciding the compensation for the 1st respondent, the Tribunal had taken into consideration the fracture of both the bones in her right leg, fracture of right femur, dislocation of knee joint and the treatment taken at Sri Ramachandra Hospital at Porur, Chennai and the 80% of the disability assessed by the doctor. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the 1st respondent as Rs.3,000/-and applied the multiply theory and awarded compensation as follows:

Disability (3,0000 x 80 x 18 x 12) .... 5,18,400.00

Medical Expenditure .... 1,52,900.00

Pain and suffering .... 1,50,000.00

Future medical expenditure .... 1,00,000.00

Extra nourishment .... 50,000,00

Transport .... 5,000.00

--------------------

9,76,300.00

-------------------

8. For the 2nd respondent, The Tribunal had taken into consideration of fracture of right leg tibia, right knee dislocation, and the treatment taken in Sri Ramachandra Hospital at Porur and the disability of 70% assessed by the doctor. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income as Rs.7,200/- and awarded compensation as follows:

Disability (7,200 x 70 x 18 x 12) .... 10,88,640.00

Medical Expenditure .... 1,04,100.00

Pain and suffering .... 1,50,000.00

Future medical expenditure .... 1,00,000.00

Extra nourishment .... 40,000,00

Transport .... 5,000.00

--------------------

14,87,740.00

-------------------

9. For the death of still born child, the Tribunal had awarded a lumpsum of Rs.5,00,000/-.

10. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has come forward with these appeals, challenging the liability as well as the quantum.

11. The common points arise for determination in