The absence of a driving license does not equate to total blame in an accident; contributory negligence may be minimally assigned based on circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

Challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2024 made in MCOP.No.145 of 2023 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /Additional District Judge, Ariyalur, the appellant-insurance company has come up with this appeal.

2. Mr.S.Ramprabu for Mr.T.Ananthasekar, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 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 claimants that, on 13.08.2023 at about 5.25 am., when the deceased Tamilarasan was proceedings from his house towards Thriuvaiyraru in a TVS Excel Heavy Duty motor cycle bearing Regn.No.TN-49-P-2901 on Thanjavur-Ariyalur main road, pursuant to the request of the 1^st respondent, who is the father of the deceased, at that time, the appellant transport corporation bus bearing Regn.No.TN-68-N- 0396 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction and dashed against the two wheeler in which the deceased was travelling, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head and right leg and died on spot. Thereby, the respondents/claimants, who are the dependents of the deceased Tamilarasan filed a claim petition in MCOP.No.145 of 2023 claiming a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined two witnesses viz., P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked exhibits P.1 to P.14 and on the side of respondents, two witnesses viz. R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and exhibits R.1 and R.2 were marked. After trial, the Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence awarded a sum of Rs.24,08,360/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased Tamilarasan, payable by the appellant/insurance company to the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/insurance company has come up with this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 19 years and he did not possess valid Driving license, Insurance and Registration certificate and the above said accident happened solely due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased. While so, merely because the FIR came to be registered as against the driver of the appellant insured vehicle, the tribunal had fastened the majority of the liability of 85% as against the appellant and had only fixed a contributory negligence of 15% on the deceased, which is not sustainable, since FIR is not a substantive document and whatever is spoken in the FIR need not be taken at its face value and the FIR may not and need not contain all the details and it is settled law that FIR is not a conclusive proof nor is an encyclopedia for deciding the case and it is only to set the criminal law in motion and no further. Further, though the claimants claimed that at the time of accident the deceased was aged about 19 years and had completed ITI Course in Welding and was working as a Welder and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month, however, in order to prove the same, no documentary evidence has been produced by the claimants. Even then, the tribunal had taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.18,000/-, which is highly excessive and the compensation awarded under other heads are also on higher side and the same has to necessarily be interfered with. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, by considering all the relevant documents, the Tribunal passed the present impugned award, which cannot be said to be erroneous and the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is alre