The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of contributory negligence in motor accident cases and the validity of the multiplier method for calculating compensation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 23.07.2019 passed in MCOP No.86 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Special District Court], Villupuram.)

Common Judgment:

1. Challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge), Villupuram, vide judgment and decree dated 23.07.2019 in MCOP No.86 of 2017, both on the point of quantum as well as on negligence, the 2nd respondent-Insurance company has filed CMA No.1917 of 2020, while, the claim petitioners, have filed CMA No.2694 of 2021, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded.

2. By consent, both Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are taken up together and disposed of by the following common judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their ranking before the claims tribunal.

4. The factum of the accident is being admitted.

5. Before the claims tribunal, the legal representatives of the deceased Udhaya Kumar, who died in the accident on 06.12.2016, filed the claim petition and it is the specific evidence of PW1 that while the deceased Udhayakumar was seated as one of the pillion rider, in the two wheeler bearing Regn.No.PY01AM7177, at that time, a Maruthi Esteem Car bearing Regn.No.TN01 AA9754, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, driven in a rash and negligent manner, tried to overtake the two wheeler, dashed against the same and resulted in the accident. At the time of accident, the deceased was working as a Junior Bailiff in Villupuram District Court and earning a sum of Rs.27,375/- per month.

6. In the counter statement filed by the insurance company, a specific plea was taken that since three persons were travelling in the two wheeler, they have contributed to the accident.

7. During the trial, PW1 and PW2 were examined. Ex.P1 to Ex.P25 were marked. RW1 was examined. Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 were marked.

8. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal has rendered a finding that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and also held that since three persons were travelling in a two-wheeler, at the time of the accident, 20% contributory negligence was fixed upon the rider of the two wheeler and also assessed the compensation and awarded Rs.28,75,000/- and directed the Insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.23,00,000/- to the claim petitioners.

9. Learned counsel for the claim petitioners could contend that the 20% contributory negligence fixed upon the driver of the two wheeler is unsustainable in law and relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Siddique & Another Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Others, reported in 2020 (1) TNMAC 161 (SC), wherein it is held as follows:

“13......Therefore, the fact that a person was a pillion rider on a motor cycle along with the driver and one more person on the pillion, may be a violation of the law. But such violation by itself, without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is established that his very act of riding along with two others, contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim. There must either be a causal connection between the violation and the accident or a causal connection between the violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim....

..... What could otherwise have resulted in a simple injury, might have resulted in a grievous injury or even death due to the violation of the law by the victim. It is in such cases, where, but for the violation of the law, either the accident could have been averted or the impact could have been minimized, that the principle of contributory negligence could be invoked. It is not the case of the insurer that the accident itself occurred as a result of three persons riding on a motor cycle. It