Contributory negligence cannot be claimed merely due to non-wearing of a helmet unless causally linked to the accident; the Tribunal's findings are upheld.

JUDGMENT :

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

1. The appellant, being the first respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 662 of 2022 on the file of the learned Special Subordinate Judge (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), has preferred the present appeal challenging the award dated 17.02.2025, primarily on the ground relating to negligence.

2. Fact of the case:

2.1. The case of the claimants is that the deceased, namely Pitchamani, on 31.08.2021 at about 7.00 p.m., while riding his two-wheeler bearing Registration No. TN57TE6383 on the Usilampatti–Patelangur Road, near Sandhai Division, was hit by a bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation bearing Registration No. TN57N2229, which came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. He was initially admitted to the Government Hospital, Usilampatti, and thereafter referred to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, for intensive treatment. Despite treatment, he succumbed to the injuries.

2.2. The dependents of the deceased, who are the claimants, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 80,00,000/-. The appellant Transport Corporation filed a counter statement denying the manner of the accident, negligence on the part of its driver, and also disputing the quantum of compensation claimed.

2.3. In order to substantiate their case, the claimants examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked Exs. P1 to P13. On the side of the appellant, the driver was examined as R.W.1 and no documentary evidence was adduced.

3. Finding of the Tribunal:

3.1. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, including the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the First Information Report, and the departmental proceedings initiated against the driver of the appellant Corporation, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Corporation bus driver. However, considering the fact that the deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident, the Tribunal fixed 7% contributory negligence on the deceased and 93% on the driver of the appellant Corporation.

3.2. Further, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 18,000/-, considering his age as 41 years and his avocation, and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 28,85,790/- on following heads:

4. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:

Assailing the said award, the learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation contended that the deceased himself contributed to the accident and, in view of the admitted fact that he was not wearing a helmet, the fixation of only 7% contributory negligence is erroneous. It is contended that the Tribunal ought to have fixed at least 20% contributory negligence. It is further submitted that, in the absence of documentary proof, the fixation of monthly income at Rs. 18,000/- is excessive and not in accordance with law.

5.Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimants:

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the First Information Report was registered against the driver of the appellant bus and that P.W.1 and P.W.2 have clearly deposed regarding the negligence of the bus driver. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has rightly fixed 7% contributory negligence for non-wearing of helmet. With regard to income, it is contended that the Tribunal has fixed a reasonable notional income, taking into consideration the nature of work of the deceased, and relying upon the principles laid down in Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.  2014 (2) SCC 735.

6. This Court has considered the rival submissions