The court confirmed that the lorry driver was solely negligent in causing the accident, dismissing contributory negligence of the deceased and upholding the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

J. Nisha Banu, J.

Today, the matter is listed under the caption 'for clarification'. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. When the matter was listed on 24.01.2025, this Court, considering the submissions made on either side, partly allowed the Appeal by fixing 10% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as he was riding the motor cycle without wearing helmet. However, before signing the order, this Court found from the rough sketch Ex.X1 that it was the lorry which came in the wrong direction, due to which, the accident had occurred. Therefore, the entire negligence has to be fixed only on the part of the driver of the lorry and 10% contributory negligence ought not to have been fixed on the deceased. Therefore, the matter is posted under the caption 'for clarification' today (19.02.2025). Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and clarifying the above aspects and hence, the following order is passed.

2 This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the award dated 26.07.2022 passed in MCOP.No.378 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge) at Tindivanam.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

4. The case of the petitioners in the claim petition is that on 18.12.2015 at about 10.30 a.m., the deceased was riding his two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-32-Q-6205 from Nallalam to Kilarungunam. At that time, the 1st respondent vehicle bearing registration No.TN-31-J- 8390 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased. As a result, the deceased died on the spot. According to the petitioners the accident occurred only due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle. The 1st petitioner is the wife, the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the minor son and daughter of the deceased. The 4th and 5th petitioners are the parents of the deceased. According to the petitioners, the 1st respondent who is the owner and the 2nd respondent, who is the insurer of the 1st respondent vehicle are jointly liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. The petitioners claim a sum of Rs.25 lakhs as compensation.

5. Heard the learned counsel the appellant Insurance Company and learned counsel for the respondents/claimants and perused the materials available on record.

6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would state that the Tribunal erred in holding that the lorry driver was negligent in driving and caused the accident. He would further state that the deceased himself invited the accident. He would further state that the deceased was riding the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and fell in front of the lorry and caused the accident. Further, the deceased was not wearing the helmet at the time of accident and not even holding any licence. He would further state that in any event, the Tribunal ought to have atleast attributed substantial contributory negligence upon the deceased. He would further state that the amount awarded under the heads, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection are on the higher side. Therefore, he would pray that the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants would state that the driver of the 1st respondent lorry drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the lorry was travelling on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased, resulting in crushing of the head of the deceased through the right side tyre of the lorry. Learned counsel would further state that though the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- at the time of accident, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income as Rs.8,000/- per month. Theref