Negligence in insurance claims requires a causal link for contributory liability; mere absence of safety gear does not alone suffice to mitigate the insurer's responsibility.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. Maria Clete, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenges the award dated 31.07.2024 in M.C.O.P. No.115 of 2021 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.II, Tiruvallur, awarding Rs.1,04,54,000/- to the first respondent/claimant for injuries sustained in a road accident on 04.12.2019.

2. The first respondent, aged 27 and employed as an Imaging Associate, suffered multiple injuries while riding pillion on a motorbike bearing Reg.No.TN 73 F 2557, which collided with a sewage lorry bearing Reg.No.TN 07 U 7069 that made a sudden, unindicated turn. He received prolonged treatment at three hospitals and was left with 95% permanent disability, as certified by the District Medical Board. The Tribunal held the insurer liable and awarded compensation accordingly.

3. The Insurance Company denied liability, attributing negligence to the motorbike rider for not maintaining 10 meters distance, ignoring the lorry’s turn signal, and not wearing a helmet or holding a valid licence. It claimed contributory negligence and disclaimed liability.

4. The lorry owner (second respondent) remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 5. The first respondent examined himself and one Jayasingh as witnesses (PW1 and PW2), marking Exs.P1 to P14; no evidence was adduced by the appellant. The Disability Certificate was marked as Ex.C1.

6. The Tribunal found the lorry driver negligent and awarded Rs.1,04,54,000/-, directing the insurer to pay. This appeal challenges that award.

7. We heard the parties and examined the record.

8. The appellant raised several grounds: the negligence of the rider was overlooked; income of Rs.30,000/- was fixed without sufficient proof; the 95% disability finding was excessive; various heads of compensation were inflated; and policy violation warranted pay and recovery.

9. In response, the first respondent’s counsel submitted that the lorry’s negligence was clearly established, the award was based on evidence, and no interference was required. The appeal deserves dismissal.

10. Based on Ex.P1 (FIR) and PW1’s evidence, the Tribunal rightly held the lorry driver negligent. The insurer offered no substantive rebuttal, and mere absence of helmet or licence does not prove contributory negligence without causal link.

11. While the Tribunal fixed monthly income at Rs.30,000/- based on PW2 and Ex.P13, the evidence is insufficient. A conservative estimate of Rs.20,000/- with 40% future prospects is adopted, considering private employment without job security.

12. The claimant is wheelchair-bound with 95% disability, and Ex.C1 supports his loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal correctly applied the multiplier method. Recomputing, the loss of earning is: Rs.28,000 × 12 × 17 × 95% = Rs.54,26,400/-. Since no amount was awarded for future medical expenses, Rs.3,50,000/- is granted. Attender charges are enhanced from Rs.21,500/- to Rs.4,50,000/-. Other heads of compensation are just and do not warrant interference.

13. Consequently, the total compensation amount is reduced from Rs.1,04,53,500/- to Rs.79,37,400/- and the revised compensation is as follows: