IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that contributory negligence can lead to liability for compensation, and the FIR alone cannot be the sole basis for deciding a claim petition.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 14.12.2017 in M.C.O.P.No.902 of 2011 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.)

1. The claimants have filed the appeal against the dismissal of the claim petition filed by them before the Tribunal.

2 The appellants are claimants, who filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- for the death of one Amalraj @ Mahendran caused in the accident that occurred on 16.05.2010. According to the appellants/claimants on 16.05.2010, when the deceased was riding as pillion rider in the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 22 AD 0622 from south to east in GST Road, the rider of the vehicle suddenly turned right side without indication in a rash and negligent manner and endangering public safety and dashed against the Car bearing Reg.No.TN 07 L 3144. In the said accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and the said accident has occurred only due to rash and negligence of the rider of the two wheel in which the deceased travelled as a pillion rider. Hence the appellants filed claim petition.

3. The claim petition was contested by the second respondent/Insurance company and they filed detailed counter denying all the allegations apart from disputing the liability.

4. Before the claims Tribunal, On the side of the claimant P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was let in.

5. The Tribunal, on an assessment of the entire evidence on record, mad a finding that the claimants failed to prove the negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler in which the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider and there is no evidence on record to support the claim of the claimants and dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved against the dismissal, the claimants are before this Court.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased. In this case eye witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2, who has clearly stated the manner in which the accident took place. Even though in the FIR it is stated that the due to rash and negligence of the driver of the Car the accident had occurred, the Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that the deceased was a pillion rider in the two wheeler and since there is involvement of two vehicles, the claimants can proceed either of the vehicle and further in this case due to involvement of two vehicles, theory of composite negligence would arise.

6.1. FIR is only a document which shows the factum of accident and the Tribunal relying on the only document i.e. FIR, dismissed the claim petition, without even looking into the other aspects, which is against the law. The Tribunal failed to note that this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again held that FIR is not a gospel. The Tribunal ought to have atleast taken contributory negligence as there was involvement of two vehicles and the Tribunal also failed to observe the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and dismissed the entire claim of the appellants on the ground that the claimants are not proved negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler.

6.2. Further the Tribunal erred in observing that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle, but, in the document i.e. FIR, which was relied on by the Tribunal, itself it is stated that the deceased was travelling as pillion rider. Therefore the finding of the Tribunal is not sustainable. Further P.W.2, who is the eye witness has clearly stated that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the Car. To support his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2015 (1) TN MAC 801 (SC), 2021 (2) tn mac 449 (SC). Therefore the claim