The main legal point established in the judgment is that contributory negligence cannot be attributed without establishing a causal connection between the violation of law and the impact of the accident.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: in CMA(MD).No.920 of 2014:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to allow this appeal, set aside the judgement and decree dated 04.01.2014 passed in M.C.O.P.No.13 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Paramakudi.

Cross Objection No.9 of 2023: - Cross Objection has been filed under Order 41 Rule 22 read with Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to enhance the award dated 04.01.2014 made in MCOP.No.13 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /Sub Court, Paramakudi.)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal primarily on the ground of liability.

2. The claim petition has been filed by the parents of the deceased who had driven a two-wheeler from Pillaiyarpatti to Paramakudi. While the two-wheeler was nearing Okkur at around 4.30 p.m, the respondent Transport Corporation bus came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motor bike in which the deceased died on the spot. An F.I.R in Crime No.1202 of 2002 was registered as against the bus driver on the file of Sivagangai Town Police Station. The accident has happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The claimants had further contended that the deceased was studying first year Diploma and the parents have prayed for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs towards compensation.

3. The Transport Corporation has filed a counter contending that the deceased had driven the motor bike in which there were two pillion riders and hence, it is a clear violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. They have further contended that the two wheeler hit against another two wheeler and because of the said impact, it dashed against the bus on the right bumper and the accident had happened. They have further contended that the driver of the bike namely Vignesh did not have any driving license.

4. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, had arrived at a finding that since the bike was driven in triples, the driver of the motor bike is also responsible for the accident. In view of the said findings, the Tribunal had arrived at a conclusion that both the bike driver as well as the bus driver are 50:50 responsible for the said accident and the claimants would be entitled to only 50% of the compensation. The Tribunal after considering the quantum, finally arrived at a finding that the claimants are entitled to Rs.6,35,000/- and after deducting 50% towards Contributory Negligence, an award of Rs.3,17,500/- was passed. Challenging the said award, the Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal.

5. The claimants have filed Cross Objection No.9 of 2023 challenging the compensation of 50% towards contributory negligence on the bike driver and for enhancement of compensation.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant had contended that even as per the claim petition, three persons have travelled in the bike which was driven by the son of the claimants. When there is a clear violation of the statutory provisions, the Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation. He had further contended that if one or two persons have travelled in the bike, they could have better control over the vehicle and they would be in a position to stop the vehicle in case of any emergency. However, when three persons have travelled in a bike, they would not be in a position to control the vehicle and stop the same when they are dashed against by another two wheeler.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that the deceased Vignesh was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and therefore, there is a violation of policy condition and they are not entitled to receive any compensation. He had further contended that the award amount of the Tribunal is already on excessive side and therefore, the request of the claimants for enhancement of co