The court affirmed the principle that contributory negligence assessments must be evidence-based, resulting in a reduction of the claimant's negligence from 40% to 15%, leading to increased compensation for future medical needs.

JUDGMENT :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

Challenging the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/II Court of Small Causes, Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for brevity) in M.C.O.P.No.3290 of 2020, dated 07.02.2025, the Insurance Company has filed C.M.A.No.3386 of 2025 and the claimant has filed C.M.A.No.1649 of 2025.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their rank in C.M.A.No.3290 of 2020.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :

On 05.10.2000 at about 19.30 p.m., when the 1^st respondent, aged about 37 years, was riding his motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-20- DZ-7346 along K.G.Kandigai to Nochi Road, near Old Saibaba Ground, the rider of the motor cycle belonging to the 2^nd respondent bearing Registration No.TN-20-DZ-7705 drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner, endangering public safety, and applied sudden break and suddenly stopped the motor cycle without any indication, as a result of which, the 1^st respondent dashed behind the 2^nd respondent’s motor cycle, fell down, and sustained severe head injuries.

4. It is the contention of the 1^st respondent that he became permanently disabled due to the accident and is not able to do any work and he continues to take treatment as out-patient all along. It is stated by the 1^st respondent that he is an agriculturist and is earning an income of Rs.50,000/- per month. Since the 1^st respondent suffers from loss of memory and speech, the 1^st respondent, represented by his wife Ramya, has filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.3290 of 2020 before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs.90,00,000/-.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 2^nd respondent, owner of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-20-DZ-7705, remained ex parte.

6. The appellant, who is the Insurer of the motor cycle belonging to the 2^nd respondent, contested the case before the Tribunal. Besides disputing the age, occupation and monthly income of the claimant, it was the contention of the appellant Insurance Company that the 2^nd respondent’s motor cycle was not involved in the accident at all. It was their further contention that the claimant was solely responsible for the accident. Hence, the appellant disputed the negligence aspect also.

7. On the side of the claimant, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P24 were marked. On the side of the respondents before the Tribunal, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. Besides, the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board was marked as Ex.C1.

8. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that both the claimant and the rider of the 2^nd respondent’s motor cycle have contributed for the accident and hence, 40% negligence has been fixed on the claimant and 60% of the negligence has been fixed on the 2^nd respondent. The Tribunal fastened the liability on the appellant, who is the Insurer of the 2^nd respondent’s motor cycle to pay the 60% compensation amount. Further, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the claimant at Rs.15,200/- per month and considering the medical records and condition of the claimant, fixed the disability at 100% and by adopting multiplier method, arrived at the loss of income at Rs.38,30,400/-. Apart from that, the Tribunal has also awarded various amounts under other heads as follows :

9. Aggrieved by the Award of the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has filed the Appeal in C.M.A.No.3386 of 2025 and the claimant has filed the Appeal in C.M.A.No.1649 of 2025 seeking enhancement of compensation.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal, having held that, if the claimant had driven the vehicle in a moderate speed observing safe distance, the accident could have been av