Court affirmed the Tribunal's determination of contributory negligence while enhancing total compensation amount to Rs.3,82,500 based on evidential assessment and adherence to legal standards for claims.

JUDGMENT :

S.Sounthar, J.

Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Special District Judge, MCOP Tribunal, Salem in M.C.O.P.No.121 of 2014, dated 05.08.2019, the claimants have come before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. It is the case of the appellants/claimants that on 27.02.2012 the husband of the 1^st claimant and father of the claimants 2 to 4 namely K.Selvaraj died in a road accident that had occurred on 27.02.2012. According to them, the deceased was riding the bi-cycle from Dharmapuri to Salem Main Road and attempted to cross the road. At that point of time, the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN 29 AL 2199 belonged to one R.Baby @ Saroja, who died pending original petition and insured with the 1^st respondent herein/Insurance Company had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bi-cycle of the deceased. As a result of the accident, he died and hence, a claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

3. Pending claim petition, the 1^st respondent therein-owner of the vehicle namely R.Baby @ Saroja died and her legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 3 and 4 before the Tribunal. In this appeal the Insurance Company is arrayed as 1^st respondent and the legal representatives of the deceased-owner of the bus are arrayed as respondents 2 and 3.

4. The owner of the bus remained exparte before the Tribunal and the claim was resisted by the insurer of the bus mainly on the ground that accident had occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased/K.Selvaraj.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 2^nd appellant/2^nd claimant was examined as PW.1 and yet another witness was examined as PW.2 and 9 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9 on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined and 2 documents were marked as Exs.R1 and R2.

6. The Tribunal based on the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that primary negligence was on the part of the driver of the bus. However, the Tribunal fixed 15% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The compensation amount payable to the claimants was quantified at Rs.3,51,034/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have come before this Court.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the Tribunal fixed the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased without any basis and therefore, the same require to be set aside. The learned counsel further submitted that the notional income of Rs.6,500/- fixed by the Tribunal is very much on lower side.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the deceased had attempted to cross the road in his bi-cycle without any precaution. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in fixing the contributory negligence on his part. He also submitted that taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the notional income of Rs.6,500/- fixed by the Tribunal is fair and reasonable.

9. In order to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, the claimants marked FIR as Ex.P1. A perusal of the same would indicate that a criminal case was registered against the driver of the bus. The 2^nd claimant, who was examined as PW.1 during the course of his examination, clearly admitted that his father attempted to cross the road from east to west in his bi-cycle and at that point of time, the bus dashed ag