In motor accident claims, liability can be apportioned through contributory negligence when both the deceased and the driver of a vehicle fail to exercise reasonable care, with drivers of heavier vehicles bearing a greater responsibility to maintain control and avoid potential collisions.

JUDGMENT :

K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

1. The appellant–Insurance Company, which was the second respondent before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No.990 of 2022 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge to deal with MCOP Cases, Tirunelveli has preferred the present appeal challenging the finding of negligence fixed on the driver of the insured vehicle bearing Registration No. AP-03-TL-2669 by order dated 12.08.2025.

2. Facts of the case:

2.1. According to the appellant, on 13.06.2022 at about 11.15 p.m., the deceased was riding a two-wheeler along with a pillion rider, namely Muthuraj, on the Tirunelveli–Kanyakumari National Highway. At that time, the deceased allegedly entered the carriageway meant for vehicles proceeding in the opposite direction in order to reach a petrol bunk situated on the eastern side of the road for refuelling his vehicle. While so, the insured vehicle bearing Registration No.AP-03-TL-2669 hit the two-wheeler, resulting in the death of the rider and injuries to the pillion rider. Based on the complaint, the Nanguneri Police registered a case in Crime No.164 of 2022 for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC.

2.2. Subsequently, the parents of the deceased filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. The appellant–Insurance Company filed a counter statement denying the manner of accident and specifically contended that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased. It was further pleaded that the deceased had entered the wrong side of the road during night hours and, therefore, the insured vehicle was not responsible for the occurrence.

2.3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P12 were marked. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exhibits R1 to R8 were marked.

3. Finding of the Tribunal:

3.1. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed the negligence on the driver of the insured vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.21,51,200/- to the claimants in the following manner:

3.2. Challenging the said award, the appellant insurance company has preferred the present appeal mainly on the aspect of negligence.

4. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant:

Assailing the said finding, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that under Ex.R7, the Investigating Officer, after conducting a detailed investigation, had closed the criminal case as mistake of fact by fixing negligence on the deceased himself. It was further contended that Ex.R2-sketch prepared during the course of investigation clearly established that the deceased had entered the lane meant for vehicles proceeding in the opposite direction. According to the appellant, the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the contents of Ex.R2 and wrongly discarded the evidence of R.W.2, the police official, on the ground that he was not an eyewitness and had merely spoken about the contents of the final report.

5. Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent:

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal, upon a proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, rightly fixed the negligence on the driver of the offending veh