Traffic violations like no helmet or excess pillion do not imply contributory negligence absent proof of causation; disability compensation uses per percentage method without functional loss evidence, enhanced considering injury nature.

JUDGMENT :

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

C.M.A. 3771 of 2025 has been filed by the Appellant / petitioner against Award the dated 09.09.2024 made in M.C.O.P. No.477 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge-I, Cuddalore.

2. C.M.A. 332 of 2026 has been filed by the Appellant / State Transport Corporation questioning the entire negligence fixed on the part of the driver of the bus and also the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. Both the appeals arise out of the same accident and the same Award and hence, disposed of by this common judgment.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the claim petition. The petitioner has filed MCOP No.477/2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge-I, Cuddalore, claiming a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 16.01.2021.

5. According to the petitioner, on 16.01.2021 at about 5.30.p.m., when he was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-91-D-8650 belonging to the 2ndrespondent, driven by one Alex Pandian, on Vrudhachalam-Chidambaram Main Road, near Siruvarappur Cinema Talkies, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-32-N-2415 belonging to the 1strespondent, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the two wheeler, as a result of which, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries all over his body and was admitted in Vrudhachalam Government Hospital and thereafter admitted in Mundiambakkam Government Hospital, Villupuram, for further treatment and underwent multiple surgeries. Hence, he filed the claim petition as stated above. 6. The claim was resisted by the 1st Respondent / Transport Corporation stating that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the two wheeler and hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation.

7. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and considering the evidence available on record, concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Transport Corporation Bus and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.12,72,000/- and directed the 1^st respondent / Transport Corporation to pay the said compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation.

8. Seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the appellant / petitioner has filed CMA 3771/2025 and, questioning the entire negligence fixed on the driver of the bus, the Transport Corporation has filed CMA No.332/2026.

9. Ms. Ramya V. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant in CMA No. 3771 of 2025 / Petitioner argued that the appellant / petitioner was working as a mason and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month and that he sustained fracture of Femur Right Leg and Grade III Compound comminuted fracture right leg both bone, which has caused impediment for continuing his work as mason. The Medical Board also assessed his disability as 45% permanent. In the circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier method for granting compensation towards disability instead of applying per percentage method. She would further submit that the Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation under the head of attender charges, pain and sufferings and loss of amenities by considering the total inpatient treatment as well as the number of surgeries underwent by him and that no amount was awarded towards future medical expenses. Hence, prayed for enhancement of compensation awarde