1. (“Tamil”) @ goes the saying in Tamil. Whether "Dharma" would save a life or not, wearing of helmet would definitely do so, by acting as a protective headgear. It is really disheartening to note that a number of precious lives are lost due to non-wearing of protective headgear, namely, helmet, as mandated under Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles, Act, 1988. The pathetic position is that in spite of the enabling statute and a number of judgments rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court as well as various High Courts including ours, neither the authorities' act as per the statue nor follow the directions issued in this regard.

2. It is a common sight, on the roads of every City, that people ride two-wheelers without helmets. It is shocking to note that 6419 persons lost their lives in 2014 alone in Tamilnadu due to non-wearing of helmet while riding two wheelers. It means that every day atleast 17 persons are dieing in Tamil Nadu alone.

3. When the Parliament enacted a statute viz Motor Vehicles Act 1988, which mandates the riders of two-wheelers to wear helmets to protect their heads, in case of any accident, the subjects are bound to follow the same and the officials are duty bound to implement it. The case on hand is the consequence, which would follow, on failure to abide by the statute, wherein the victim, due to non-wearing of helmet, sustained head injuries and later, succumbed to the injuries.

4. The victim in this case, namely, one Mr. N. Kumar, aged about 30 years, a building demolition work contractor, on 02.05.2011, while riding his two-wheeler from North to South direction, in Virugambakkam, opposite to RTO Office, was hit by a van, coming from the opposite direction, belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent Insurance Company, driven in a rash and negligent manner, causing head injuries and multiple injuries to him, which proved fatal later on. Hence, the claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Kumar seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 17,50,000/-. The Tribunal, after enquiry, awarded a sum of Rs. 12,23,100/- as compensation to the claimants. Not satisfied with the said award, the claimants are before this Court.

5. Heard Mr. T.G. Balachandran, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.Srinivasan Ramalingam, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Insurance Company, Mr .M. Venugopal, learned Special Government Pleader (CS), assisted by Mrs. Jayashree, learned Government Advocate, for R3 & R4 and Mr. G. Rajagopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General for the 5th respondent and perused the records carefully.

6. In the claim petition filed by the appellants, the 2nd respondent Insurance Company took many defences including non-wearing of helmet by the deceased at the time of accident. It is the specific case of the 2nd respondent that the deceased was not wearing helmet and that if he had worn the helmet, he would not have lost his life. However, no such plea was taken in the counter statement. Therefore, the contention is not sustainable.

7. Ex.P1 FIR was registered against the driver and charge sheet Ex.P3 was laid against the van driver. The contentin of the 2nd respondent that the injured fell down from the two wheeler and died was rejected by the Tribunal. Considering the filing of FIR on the same day, the plea of the 2nd respondent that the Van (offending vehicle) was not involved in the accident was rightly negatived by the Tribunal. P.W.2 eyewitness spoke about the accident and there is no contra evidence on the side of the second respondent. All the three witnesses examined by the second respondent are all their officials and an official from RTO Office in this regard. Therefore, the Tribunal, based on evidence adduced rightly came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only because of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the van