Contributory negligence can impact compensation, requiring evidence of liability; adjustments made to income and personal expense deductions are vital for fair assessments.

JUDGMENT :

K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

1. Award in M.C.O.P. No.630 of 2018 dated 28.09.2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge Court), Erode, is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the claimants before the Tribunal. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows:

2.1 On 06.06.2018, at about 1.45 a.m, the first respondent in a negligent manner and without following the traffic rules parked the lorry bearing Registration Number TN 21 T 3254 on Kunnathur Road flyover at Coimbatore-Salem NH 544 Main road and at that time the deceased Anguraj drove his Bolero Pick up vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 36 AW 7193 towards west-east direction carefully with nominal speed and dashed against the Tata lorry bearing Registration Number TN 21 T 3254. As a result of the accident, the deceased suffered multiple grievous head injuries. Immediately the said Anguraj was taken to Government Hospital, Tirupur, where he was declared brought dead.

2.2. According to the claimants, the deceased Anguraj was 29 years old at the time of accident and was working as a driver in Times of India Newspaper at Coimbatore and was earning not less than Rs.25,000/- per month. The first and second claimants are mother and grand mother respectively, of the deceased Anguraj. They filed the above claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.35,55,000/- for the death of the deceased Anguraj.

2.3. The third respondent/Insurance Company contested the Claim Petition by stating that the lorry bearing Registration Number TN 21 T 3254 was parked on the left hand side of the road following the traffic rules and at that time, the deceased, who drove the Bolero vehicle bearing Registration Number TN 21 T 3254 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the parked lorry from behind. Hence, the deceased alone invited the accident and responsible for the same and therefore, the third respondent/Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

2.4. Before the Tribunal the first claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and one Prabhakaran as P.W.2 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 and no evidence was let in on the side of the respondents.

2.5. Based on the materials on record, the Tribunal fixed 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and awarded a sum of Rs.7,70,750/- as compensation to be paid by the third respondent/Insurance Company with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.

3. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is preferred. Though the name of the respondents are printed in the cause list after due notice, there is no representation on the side of the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the occurrence took place at 1.45 a.m and that the first respondent had parked the vehicle in the fly over without switching on the parking lights and without placing parking symbols and the same has been established through the oral evidence of P.W.2. His further contention is that once substantive evidence before the Tribunal established that the lorry had been parked on the road at night without any parking symbols, there was no reason or justification for the Tribunal to proceed on the basis of conjecture in arriving at a finding of contributory negligence. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in holding that both vehicle drivers have contributed to the accident and accordingly apportioning the liability in the ratio 50:50 between the deceased and the first respondent. Hence, the same requires interference by this Court.

4.1. He further submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as a driver and earning a sum of R