The judgment establishes the principle that the admission of multiple persons on a motorcycle can lead to reduced control and contribute to negligence in the event of an accident.

1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the appellant/claimant against the common award dated 07.08.2012 made in M.C.O.P.Nos.897 & 900 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Sathyamangalam.

2. Both the appeals arise out of the same accident and common award and hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The appellants/claimants filed M.C.O.P.Nos.897 & 900 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Sathyamangalam, claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- each as compensation for the injuries sustained by them in the accident that took place on 26.09.2010.

4. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by both the rider of the motorcycle in which the appellants traveled as pillion as well as the driver of the Indica Car belonging to the 1st respondent and fixed 50% negligence on both of them and directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.1,17,000/- and Rs.85,750/- jointly and severally being 50% of the compensation amount to the appellants/claimants.

5. Challenging the award fixing 50% contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and for enhancement of the compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 07.08.2012 made in M.C.O.P.Nos.897 & 900 of 2010, the appellants have come out with the present appeals.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the Tribunal failed to consider that FIR and charge sheet are against the driver of the Indica car belonging to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal. There is no contra evidence let in by the respondents to disprove the case of the appellants. In the absence of any contra evidence, the Tribunal erred in fixing 50% contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle in which the appellants traveled as pillion rider, without any basis, only on the ground that four persons traveled in the motorcycle at the time of accident. The finding of the Tribunal is perverse against the settled proposition of law. The Tribunal failed to see that there is no evidence to show that the accident occurred only due to four persons traveled in the motorcycle. The Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation by applying multiplier method based on the income earned by the appellants and the appellants are not able to work due to the multiple injuries and shortening of ½ inch in the left leg and removal of femur, the appellants cannot stand for a long time. The Tribunal failed to grant any amount towards loss of amenities, future medical expenses and loss of expectation of life and the amounts granted by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering, extra nourishment and loss of income are very meagre and prayed for enhancement of the compensation. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied on the following judgments:

(i) 2011 (1) TN MAC 136 (DB) [The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Uma and others]:

“10. Learned Counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company mainly contended that as per Section 128 of M.V. Act, no driver of two wheeled motorcycle shall carry more than one person in addition to himself and having violated the provisions of Section 128 of M.V. Act, the deceased himself contributed to the accident. It was further contended that Tribunal has failed to appreciate that as per the Police records and the admissions in the Claim Petitions, the deceased Murugappan drove the motorcycle along with his son and his wife and thereby contributed to the accident which the Tribunal failed to take into account.

11. Plea of contributory negligence has to be established by substantive evidence. After necessary Application under Section 170 of M.V. Act, Appellant-Insurance Company must have adduced proper evidence to substantiate the plea of contributory negligence. Even t