The court emphasized that contributory negligence must be established by preponderance of probability and considered future prospects in determining compensation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award, dated 20.12.2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.593 of 2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / District Court, Karur.

Cross Objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 read with Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award, dated 20.12.2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.593 of 2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / District Court, Karur.)

Common Judgment

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as well as the Cross Objection are directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.593 of 2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / District Court, Karur.

2. The Transport Corporation has filed the appeal in C.M.A(MD)No.714 of 2020 against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.593 of 2018 on the ground that three persons have travelled in the bike and hence, they are contributed for the negligence and also on the quantum of compensation.

3. The claimants have filed Cross Objection seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant / Transport Corporation and the learned counsel for the respondents / claim petitioners, who are the cross-objectors.

5. The Tribunal has awarded compensation taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.11,000/- and at the time of the accident, he is 37 years. However, future prospects was not given and on that sole ground, the cross objection has been filed seeking for enhancement of compensation.

6. The legal representatives of the deceased Thangaraj, aged about 37 years, have filed the claim petition seeking compensation for the death of the said Thangaraj in the road accident happened on 22.11.2017.

7. In the claim petition as well as in the evidence of P.W.1, it is averred that on 22.11.2017 at about 06.15 p.m., the deceased Thangaraj was travelling as a pillion rider in a Passion Pro Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-22-BU-4140 along with one Balaji which was ridden by one Periyasamy and they were keeping to extreme left side of the road from south to north and reached near Manvadi RV Bricks at Dindigul to Karur Main road. During that time, the driver of the TNSTC bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-2301 was came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and without observing the road traffic rules and hit against the deceased travelling in the motorcycle. As a result of the sudden impact, the deceased Thangaraj was fell down and sustained serious head injures and grievous fracture over both the legs and injuries all over the body and the rider of the motorcycle was sustained injuries and subsequently died on the way to the hospital and another traveller of the said motorcycle was also sustained injuries.

8. The appellant / Transport Corporation has filed counter disputing the liability on the ground that at the time of riding the two wheeler, three persons have travelled in the two wheeler and that is the cause for the accident and therefore contributory negligence has to be fixed upon the rider of the two wheeler in which the deceased was travelling as pillion rider, besides the deceased has not worn helmet.

9. One of the occurrence witnesses, namely, Mani, is examined as P.W.2 on the side of the claimants. On the side of the appellant / Transport Corporation, the driver of the bus, namely, Paramalingam is examined as R.W.1. As the occurrence witness P.W.2, Mani was examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence, he could depose the manner of the accident as stated in the claim petition that he had witnessed the accident, when he was returning from Velliyani to Dindigul on Dindigul to Karur road. He also admitted in the crossexamination that at the time of the accident, three persons have travelled in the two wheeler and categorically stated that the driver of the bus alone is negligent and thereby, he has caused the accident. The said version of the oral evidence of P.W.2 is duly corroborated by the documentary evidence of Ex.P.1, so als