The court clarified that contributory negligence must be evidentially supported and that compensations should not be diminished without sufficient justification.

JUDGMENT :

K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

The claimant has filed this appeal, aggrieved over the inadequate Award of Rs.78,000/- made in M.C.O.P. No.224/2022 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-Court No.II), Salem, for the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant.

2. The facts of the case are that on 06.11.2021, at about 6.15 p.m., the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider in a Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. TN 60 BZ 2944 at Devadanapatti-Periakulam Main Road and while nearing Devangar Polytechnic, the rider of the motorcycle rode the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with great speed and dashed against a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL 69 C 4506 and caused the accident. In the said accident the claimant/appellant suffered grievous injuries and was immediately taken to the hospital for treatment. At the time of accident, the claimant/appellant was 25 years old and was working in a private company as a field officer earning a sum of Rs.19,000/- per month. Hence, he was constrained to file a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him.

3. Before the Tribunal, in the counter filed by the 3^rd respondent/Insurance Company, it was pleaded that the claimant has violated the Rule, i,e., three persons travelled in the motorcycle and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to compensate the claimant.

4. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record, fastened 50% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and directed the third respondent Insurance Company to pay compensation of 78,000/- (50% of the total compensation of Rs.1,56,000/-) to the appellant/claimant together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation.

5. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation and challenging fastening of negligence on his part, the claimant has filed the present appeal.

6. Heard on both sides and perused the records.

7. There is no debate with regard to the Insurance coverage of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 60 BZ 2944 with the 3^rd respondent Insurance Company at the time of accident. But, the 3^rd respondent very much assails the claim of the claimant contending that since there was violation of the policy conditions, the claimant is not entitled for compensation.

8. In certain cases, this Court had occasions to discuss the liability of the Insurance Company, for payment of compensation to the aggrieved parties under the circumstances where the number of passengers were exceeding the prescribed limit. However, the 3^rd respondent Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal assailing the Award passed by the Tribunal. Only the claimant has preferred the present appeal questioning the fixation of 50% contributory negligence on his part by the Tribunal. While dealing with such identical circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has held that merely by lifting a person or two, it cannot be said to be such a fundamental breach that the owner should, in all events, be denied indemnification. Breach of the condition of the policy was somewhat irregular though, but not so fundamental in nature so as to put an end to the contract, unless some factors existed which, by themselves, had gone to contribute to the causing of the accident. If the Insurance Company is able to prove that it is because of the additional persons, who are allowed to occupy the vehicle, the accident occurred, the position would be different. In the case on hand, the 3^rd respondent Insurance Company failed to adduce any oral or d