The court adjusted the contributory negligence ratio to 40% for the deceased and enhanced the compensation to Rs.13,70,000/- based on notional income and applicable multiplier.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 02.10.2018 the husband of the first claimant and father of the claimants 2 and 3, namely Damodaran was on duty as a driver of lorry bearing registration No.TN 83 W 0374 belonging to the third respondent, insured with the fourth respondent. The deceased was driving the lorry carefully and cautiously in the middle lane of the road and at about 4.30 hours on 02.10.2018, when the lorry was nearing Ambur, Kannikapuram Aavin Milk Booth in Chennai-Bangalore High way, the lorry bearing registration No.TN-28-BA-5459 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, which was going in front of the lorry driven by the deceased, without following the traffic rules, suddenly changed the lane from the right side and came in the middle lane, just in front of the lorry driven by the deceased. Though the deceased applied sudden brakes, his lorry dashed against the lorry belonging to the first respondent. As a result of the said accident, the deceased received fatal injuries and later he died in hospital. Hence, the claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent, owner of the offending lorry remained exparte. The insurer of the first respondent's lorry, namely the second respondent filed counter and denied the manner of accident, as averred in the claim petition. It was the case of the second respondent that the accident had occurred only due to the negligent driving of the deceased. The second respondent also denied the averments made in the claim petition regarding the age, income of the deceased etc.,

4. The third respondent owner of the lorry driven by the deceased filed counter stating that the driver of the first respondent had driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner. The fourth respondent, insurer of the third respondent lorry also filed counter and claimed that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the first respondent lorry.

5. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant was examined as PW1 and an eye witness was examined as PW2. An official was examined on behalf of employer of the deceased as PW3. On behalf of the claimants, 14 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. The Sub Inspector of Ambur Town Police Station was examined as RW1. An official of RTO office, Tiruppathur was examined as RW2 and an official of RTO, Namakkal-North was examined as RW3 and on behalf of the respondents, 14 documents were marked as Ex.R1 to Ex.R14.

6. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased also contributed to the accident and fixed 50% negligence on the part of the deceased and the remaining 50% on the part of the driver of the first respondent vehicle. The Tribunal quantified the compensation payable to the claimants at Rs.4,70,600/-, after deducting 50%. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the claimants.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the Tribunal without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, erroneously came to the conclusion that the deceased also contributed to the accident and hence, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the contributory negligence shall be set aside. He further submitted that the notional income at Rs.9,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is very much on lower side and hence, the same shall be increased.

8. The learned counsel for the second respondent / insurance company vehemently contended that the lorry of the first respondent was driven by its driver carefully by following the traffic rules and the deceased, who came from the behind, dashed against the lorry of the first respondent and hence, the Tribunal was justified in fixing 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The learned counsel further submits that the claima