The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of contributory negligence and the application of legal provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 128, in assessing the liability for the accident.

1. This appeal is preferred by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., aggrieved against the award passed by the learned Additional Special Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri in M.C.O.P.No.49 of 2002. By the impugned award, the Tribunal has found that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle/tractor and awarded Rs.4,36,500/-as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.

2. The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal is stated as follows:-

On 24.01.2001 at about 3.30 a.m., when the deceased Rangan @ Pandurangan was proceeding in Bajaj Scooter towards Vellisanthai in Pallakad main road, a tractor bearing registration No.TN-23-Y-5881 hit the Scooter bearing registration No.TN-29-4950, as a result of which the deceased and the pillion riders fell down. The deceased Rangan got multiple injuries all over the body and died on the spot.

3. Mr.R.Sivakumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company raised contentions before this Court that the Tribunal has committed gross error in not considering the contributory negligence on the part of the Scooterist who was proceeding by carrying two pillion riders in the Scooter. He also raised contention that the Tribunal has totally ignored P.W.2's version who has given contradictory statement that only two persons were travelling in the Scooter at the time of accident. He submitted that the Tribunal has committed gross error in holding that the tractor driver is solely responsible for the accident. It was also contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. It is further contended that the second claimant who is the sister of the deceased was not a dependent and the Tribunal erred in apportioning the compensation to the second respondent/sister of the deceased. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Gobichettipalayam Vs. Sivagami & Others [2012 (1) TN MAC 713] in support of his contention that three persons travelling in a Scooter not only amounts to violation of policy condition but also violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and also placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. S.Chitra and others [2010 ACJ 1316] and also in 2003 (1) MLJ 489, Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Division) Ltd., formerly Cheran Transport Corporation Vs. Abdul and others that carrying two persons on motor-cycle as pillion riders tantamount to contributory negligence on the part of the motor cyclist as such action of the individual is illegal and unauthorized. In support of his contention that sister of the deceased is not entitled for any compensation as she is not the dependent of the deceased, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in N.Lakshmi& another Vs. Pichaiammal & others [1987 ACJ 31] and also on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported inAmrit Bhanu Shali and others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., and others [2012 ACJ 2002], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the married sister of the deceased is not entitled to any share in the compensation along with her parents.

4. On the other hand, Mr.P.Tamilavel, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation and for that the Tribunal has not committed any error warranting any interference. He submitted that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and fastened the negligence on the part of the tractor driver and therefore, this being appreciation of facts on the basis of record after considering the FIR and evidence of P.W.2, this Court may not interfere in such findings of fac