A lack of a valid driving licence does not imply contributory negligence unless it directly caused the accident; the awarded compensation was adjusted for functional disability and ongoing medical needs.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated August 16, 2024 passed by 'the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri' ['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P. No.268 of 2023, the second respondent therein, namely The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, has preferred C.M.A. No.3839 of 2025 seeking to set aside the Award, while the petitioner therein, namely Ramamoorthy, has preferred C.M.A. No.90 of 2026 seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be denoted as per their array in the Claim Petition.

PETITIONER'S CASE

3. On September 11, 2022, the petitioner was riding his motorcycle viz., Yamaha YBR bearing Registration No.TN-29-BB-4075. He was proceeding from Thippachandiram to Rathinagiri Road, near the Diversion Road adjoining PAJAKA Milk Dairy. At that time, the first respondent's Pickup vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-25-BR-4989, driven by its driver from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, lost control and dashed against the petitioner's motorcycle.

3.1. Due to the said impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was admitted and treated at the Government Hospital, Denkanikottai and thereafter at SPARSH Hospital, Bangalore. Even as on the date of petition, the petitioner was continuing his medical treatment. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was aged about 24 years and was working as a Catering Master, earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month.

3.2. Pursuant to the accident, a First Information Report (F.I.R.) in Crime No.226 of 2022 was registered for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , on the file of Denkanikottai Police Station, Krishnagiri District against the driver of first respondent's Pickup vehicle.

3.3. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said Pickup vehicle. Hence, the respondents, being owner and insurer of the offending Pickup vehicle respectively, are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present claim petition seeking a compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Five Lakhs only).

FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE:

4. Despite notice to the first respondent, he did not choose to contest the Claim Petition and hence he was called absent and set ex-parte by the Tribunal.

SECOND RESPONDENT’S CASE:

5. The second respondent filed a counter statement contending that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the petitioner himself. According to the second respondent, the petitioner was riding his motorcycle without holding a valid driving licence and without wearing a helmet. It is further contended that the petitioner rode the motorcycle at a high speed in a junction road, lost control of the vehicle, and dashed against the alleged offending vehicle belonging to the first respondent, thereby inviting the accident. The second respondent further denied the other petition averments and contended that the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. On these grounds, the second respondent / insurance company sought for dismissal of the Claim Petition.

TRIBUNAL

6. At trial,