The court established that contributory negligence must be backed by conclusive evidence, leading to a full liability placed on the driver for compensation determination.

JUDGEMENT :

(M. DHANDAPANI, J.)

Challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2023 made in MCOP.No.63 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Perambalur, the claimants are before this Court.

2. Mr.K.Thirunavukkarasu, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the 2^nd respondent. In view of the consent expressed by the learned counsel on either side, this appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. It is the case of the appellants/claimants that, on 30.12.2019 at about 23 hours, when the deceased Aravinth was walking from West to East direction on the extreme left side of the Thiruchankodu to Namakkal road, at that time, a car bearing Regn.No.TN-28-AF-7445 owned by the 1^st respondent insured with the 2^nd respondent driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in the opposite direction and dashed against him, due to which the deceased Aravinth sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. Thereby, the appellants being the dependents of the deceased Aravinth, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.60,00,000/-. Before the tribunal, the claimants examined three witnesses viz. P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked exhibits P.1 to P.15 and Exhibits X.1 & X.2 and on the side of respondents, X.W.1 and R.W.1 were marked and exhibits R.1 & R.2 were marked. After trial, the Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, though came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place solely due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the 1^st respondent, however, fixed a contributory negligence of 20% on the part of the deceased Aravinth and awarded a meagre compensation of Rs.23,38,106/-. Challenging the same, the appellants/claimants have come up with this appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that admittedly, at the time of accident, the deceased was only aged about 26 years and was working as a Paratta Master and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month, however, the tribunal had fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.14,562/- which is very meagre and the compensation awarded under the other heads are also on the lower side and the same has to necessarily be enhanced. Further, at the time of accident, the deceased was walking cautiously on the extreme left side of the road and the above said accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1^st respondent vehicle, due to which, a person lost his life, however, the tribunal, merely based on the rough sketch Ex.X.1 came to an assumption that, the deceased might have walked in a zig zag manner and thereby fixed a contributory negligence of 20% of the deceased which is wholly unsustainable. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company submitted that, by considering all the relevant documents, particularly the rough sketch, Ex.X.1 the Tribunal fixed 20% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, which cannot be said to be erroneous and the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is already on the higher side and the same does not require any enhancement. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. The factum and manner of the accident is not in dispute and therefore, this Court is not entering into the said aspect. The major grievance of the appellants is that, though the accident is of the year 2019 and at the time of accident, the dec