The court upheld the principle of contributory negligence and declined to interfere with the Tribunal's award of compensation.

JUDGMENT

(prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.389 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IV Additional Sub Judge, Madurai dated 07.02.2013.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed as against the judgment and decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Madurai in  M.C.O.P.No.389 of 2009 dated 07.02.2013 by the appellant/petitioner/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Aggrieved by the insufficiency of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, by its award dated 07.02.2013, the injured claimant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is as follows:- On 16.11.2007 at about 21.45 hours, while the petitioner/claimant was driving his vehicle bearing registration No.TN-59-G-0618 from west to east along with one Police Inspector Ponram, a bus bearing registration No.TN-58-N-0475 belonging to the respondent Corporation came from the same direction and dashed behind the right back side of the Jeep, driven of the petitioner/claimant. Due to the sudden impact, the Jeep was capsized, in which the petitioner/claimant sustained multiple injuries all over the body. Seeking a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the same, the petitioner/claimant filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No. 389 of 2009.

4. The said claim was resisted by the respondent Corporation and a counter was also filed categorically submitting that the allegation made by the petitioner/claimant that the accident caused permanent disability to the petitioner/claimant has to be put to strict proof. That apart it was also pleaded that on 16.11.2007, at about 09.20 p.m., the respondent bus driver took the bus bearing registration No.TN-58-N-0475 from Madurai to Usilampatti trip from east to west direction after boarding and alighting the passengers in V.N. College bus stop. The respondent bus driver was driving the bus in a moderate speed and adhering all traffic rules, the petitioner's Jeep was proceeding before the respondent's bus in the same direction and when the bus was nearing the floor mill bus stop, unexpectedly the petitioner/claimant turned the Jeep suddenly to the right side of the road in order to reach the police Inspector's house, which is in the opposite side of the floor mill bus stop without adhering the traffic rules and regulations without giving any signal to the respondent bus driver. Though in order to avoid the accident, the respondent bus driver turned the bus to the right side of the road, the petitioner also turned the Jeep to the right side of the road and as the result of which, the respondent bus dashed against the petitioner's Jeep in the backside of the Jeep in the right side. Had the petitioner being careful and cautious and had observed the traffic rules, the accident could have been averted. The accident had happened only due to the negligence of the appellant/petitioner/claimant. Hence, the respondent Corporation is not liable to pay compensation and the amount claimed is also highly exorbitant.

5. Five witnesses were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 were marked on the side of the petitioner. One driver of TNSTC Ponnupandian was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R1 was marked through him. After recording the evidence, the learned Tribunal heard the arguments advanced on both the sides and framed necessary points for determination and scrutinizing the evidence both the oral and documentary and upon appreciation of evidence held that both the appellant/petitioner/claimant and the driver of the respondent bus are equally responsible for the accident and thereby, fixed contributory negligence on both the drivers involved in the accident. On the basis of the evidence deposed by P.W.5, Dr.P.S.Shanmugam, the one who treated the petitioner and has assess