JUDGMENT :

R. SUBBIAH, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the claimant as against the Award dated 15.07.2020 made in M.C.O.P. No. 413 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-Court No. 1), Salem, for enhancement of the compensation amount.

2. It is the case of the claimant that on 21.04.2016 at about 6.30 a.m. when the claimant was riding his two-wheeler bearing Registration No. TN-29-K-8109 on Dharmapuri-Salem Road, a lorry bearing Registration No. TN-29-AK-4444, owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent-Insurance Company, came in a rash and negligent manner from behind and hit the claimant's two-wheeler, as a result of which, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. He was taken to hospital and his right leg below the knee was amputated. The Doctor had assessed the disability suffered by the victim at 80%. Hence, the claimant/injured filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 75,00,000/-.

3. The said claim petition was resisted by the second respondent- Insurance Company by filing counter statement before the Tribunal denying the manner in which the accident was projected by the appellant/claimant. It is the specific case of the second respondent/ Insurance Company that the claimant came in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident by hitting on the rear side of the lorry. In fact, the First Information Report (FIR) was registered only against the claimant based on the statement of the driver of the lorry. The Insurance Company also denied the age, income of the claimant, his avocation, etc. Thus, the Insurance Company prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition.

4. In order to prove the claim, before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW-1, besides, an eye-witness to the accident was examined as PW-2 and Exs.P-1 to P-18 were marked on their side.

5. On the side of the Insurance Company, RWs. 1 and 2 were examined and investigation report was marked as Ex.R-1. That apart, the FIR, Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, final report, RCS notice, etc. were marked as Ex.C-1 as one document.

6. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accident was on account of the contributory negligence on the part of the appellant/claimant as well as on the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal fixed 40% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and 60% on the part of the driver of the lorry. Thereafter, the Tribunal arrived at the compensation amount totally at Rs. 26,29,763/- and 60% of the same was arrived at Rs. 15,77,858/- and thereby directed the second respondent-Insurance Company to pay the said sum of Rs. 15,77,858/- as compensation to the appellant/claimant. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the claimant.

7. Now, the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the specific case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that, while the appellant was proceeding in his two-wheeler, the lorry came from behind and hit the two-wheeler on its rear side. PW-1/claimant had also spoken about the manner of the accident. In such circumstances, the Tribunal by relying upon the evidence of PW-1, ought to have come to the conclusion that the accident was due to the negligent driving of the lorry and instead of doing so, the Tribunal has fixed contributory negligence on the part of the victim/injured and thus, prayed for setting aside the finding of the Tribunal in fixing contributory negligence at 40% on the part of the claimant and consequently, direct the second respondent/Insurance Company to pay the entire compensation amount by fixing the liability wholly on the part of the driver of the lorry.

8. Countering the above submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company submitted that it is the victi