The court emphasized the need to award just compensation and considered legal principles for determining contributory negligence and modifying the compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.450 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore.

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the portion of the award fixing 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as well as for enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 05.10.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.450 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore.

2. The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.450 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore. They filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.18,50,000/- as compensation for the death of their son viz., S. Tamilselvan, who died in the accident that took place on 17.01.2011.

3. According to the appellants, on the date of accident i.e., on 17.01.2011 at 4.30. p.m., while the deceased Tamilselvan was riding in his two wheeler along with his friend K. Venkatesan as a pillion rider at Velari koot road, Timiri, Arcot taluk, Vellore District, on the extreme left side of the road, the Inspector of Police, Timiri Police Station, who was employed under the 1st respondent, drove the Police jeep in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two wheeler driven by the deceased. Due to the said impact, the said Tamilselvan fell down from the two wheeler and thus, the accident has occurred. In the accident, the said Tamilselvan sustained fatal injuries and died. Therefore, the appellants filed the above claim petition claiming compensation against the respondents.

4. The 1st respondent, owner of the jeep filed counter statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and stated that at the time of accident, the deceased Tamilselvan rode the two wheeler along with one Venkatesan as pillion rider in a rash and negligent manner with drunken mood in the opposite direction. The Inspector of Police drove the Police jeep slowly on the left side of the road and after noticing that the deceased was riding the two wheeler in a drunken mood, slowed down his jeep to the minimum speed to extreme left side of the road. Even then the deceased rode the two wheeler at high speed and dashed against the jeep and invited the accident. So the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent riding by the deceased. The appellants are not entitled to any compensation for their son's fault. The owner and insurer of the two wheeler driven by the deceased were not made as parties to the claim petition. Therefore, the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and hence, the 1st respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the appellants. The 2nd respondent herein is not connected with the alleged jeep belonging to the 1st respondent and he is unnecessary party to the claim petition. In any event, the compensation claimed by the appellants is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd appellant, father of the deceased, examined himself as P.W.1, one Venkatesan, pillion rider of the two wheeler driven by the deceased, was examined as P.W.2 and 10 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10. The respondents examined one Mr. Mathiyarasan, Inspector of Police as R.W.1 and marked copy of the judgment in C.C.No.80 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court No.I, Walaja, as Ex.R1.

6. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the jeep belonging to the 1st respondent and the deceased Tamilselvan was also contributed to the accident, fixed 50 : 50 contributory negli