Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3603
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Sounthar, J.
Rajendiran - Appellant
Versus
Rajasekar and ors. - Respondents
C.M.A.No.464 of 2025
Decided On : 19-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms.N.Lavanya for M/s.M.Malar
For the Respondent: Mr.N.Sampath
Non-possession of a driving license does not equate to contributory negligence without evidence of the claimant's rashness or negligence in driving.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident - Claimant sought Rs.10,00,000/- but Tribunal awarded Rs.2,59,250/- - Court found Tribunal's compensation inadequate and modified it to Rs.3,45,000/- - Contributory negligence fixed at 15% due to lack of driving license was deemed unsustainable. (Paras 2, 4, 11, 13)
(B) Negligence - Non-possession of a driving license does not automatically imply contributory negligence without evidence of rashness or negligence in driving. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The claimant suffered serious injuries in a road accident on 03.04.2022 when his two-wheeler was hit by another vehicle. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,59,250/- as compensation, which the claimant appealed against, seeking enhancement.
Findings of Court:
The Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.3,45,000/- based on the nature of injuries and applicable legal principles regarding contributory negligence.
Issues: The main issues were the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the validity of contributory negligence attributed to the claimant.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Tribunal's reliance on the claimant's lack of a driving license to impose contributory negligence was incorrect, emphasizing that negligence must be proven with evidence. The compensation for disability was also recalibrated to reflect the severity of injuries.
Result: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
S. Sounthar, J
Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the claimant/appellant has come before this Court by way of this appeal.
2. It is not in dispute that the appellant/claimant suffered injury in a road accident that had taken place on 03.04.2022. It is the case of the appellant that he was driving his TVS Scooty Zest Bike bearing Registration No.TN 25 BS 7043 on the left extreme side of the road from Tiruvannamalai to Tindivanam. The Two Wheeler namely Bajaj Pulsar belonging to the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent bearing Registration No.TN 25 BT 2703 came in the opposite direction and dashed against two wheeler of the claimant. As a result of which, the claimant sustained serious injuries. Therefore, the claim petition was filed by the claimant seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
3. Before the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant was examined as PW.1. On the side of the appellant, 5 documents were examined as Exs.P1 to P5. On the side of the respondent, Joyson Yogaraj, Junior Assistant, RTO, Tiruvannamalai and M.R.K.Rajaselvam, Medical Officer, Government Medial College Hospital, Tiruvannamalai, were examined as RW.1 and RW.2 respectively and 3 documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R3. The Disability Certificate issued to the appellant by the Medical Board, Tiruvannamalai was marked as Ex.C1.
4. Based on the evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,59,250/- in favour of the claimant. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the injured/claimant has come by way of this appeal.
5. Both the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent have not advanced any arguments on the question of negligence and liability aspects. Therefore, facts necessary for deciding those questions are not discussed in this judgment.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit that the accident had taken place in the year 2022, however, while calculating the compensation on percentage basis, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.5,000/- per percentage and the same requires enhancement. She further submitted that the Tribunal fixed 15% contributory negligence only on the ground he did not possess valid driving licence and the same is against law settled by Apex Court.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company would submit that having regard to the nature of the injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant, the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is justifiable. The learned counsel further submitted that the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded under the head of pain and sufferings and amount of Rs.75,000/- awarded under the head of loss of amenities are highly excessive and the same have to be reduced.
8. The Tribunal fixed contributory negligence on the claimant only on the ground that he did not possess valid driving licence. Non-possession of driving licence per se is not a ground to fix contributory negligence on the side of injured claimant, when there is no positive evidence on record to suggest his negligence. The Tribunal on proper appreciation of evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and also Ex.P1-FIR, came to the conclusion that the negligence is only on the part of vehicle belonged to 1st respondent. The Apex Court in Sudhir Kumar Rana vs. Surinder Singh and others reported in CDJ 2008 SC 862 = 2008 (12) SCC 463 , while consider non-possession of driving license observed as follows:-
“8. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini-truck which was being driven rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-
