The court affirmed that negligence in vehicular accidents should be supported by evidence, reinforcing the tribunal's findings on compensation adequacy for severe injuries.

JUDGMENT

[MACA Nos.1445/2015, 49/2023]

This appeal is filed by the 3rd respondent/insurance company challenging negligence and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur, in O.P (MV) No.144 of 2013. The Cross Objection is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 18.05.2010, at about

7.30 p.m., while the claimant was pillion riding on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-03-Q-5802 from Kolappuram to Cholakkund, a goods autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-55-A-3471 driven by the second respondent which was parked on the side of the road suddenly took the vehicle towards right side in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle and as a result, claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming compensation of ₹18,77,000/- which is limited to ₹15,00,000/-.

3. Though notice was served on the respondents, the first and second respondents, who were the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle remained absent and were ex- parte before the tribunal. The third respondent, insurer filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. They submitted that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the cross objector/claimant. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A12 and Ext.C1 were marked and PW1 was examined. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a total compensation of ₹9,11,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition with realization against the third respondent insurer. Challenging negligence and quantum of compensation awarded, the 3^rd respondent - insurance company has come up in appeal and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation award, the claimant/cross objector has filed cross objection.

4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurance company and the learned counsel for the cross objector/claimant.

5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer submitted that the accident occurred while the rider of the motorcycle hit the rear side of the parked autorickshaw and hence there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. However, the tribunal has found negligence on the part of the driver of the goods auto rickshaw and awarded compensation. The learned counsel appearing for the cross objector/claimant, however, submitted that the charge sheet was drawn against the driver of the goods auto and no charge sheet was drawn against the rider of the motorcycle.

6. I have considered the rival contentions raised by both sides.

7. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the charge sheet was drawn against the driver of the goods autorickshaw. Moreover, the insurance company has not adduced any evidence to disprove the charge sheet and to prove that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the said contention regarding contributory negligence. Therefore, the finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the goods autorickshaw is found correct.

8. When this case was taken up on 30.10.2025, this Court directed the cross objector/claimant to appear online on 07.11.2025 at 1.45 p.m. In compliance with the direction, the cross objector, along with his mother, appeared online on 07.11.2025. During interaction, it was observed that the cross objector is suffering from a personality disorder and memory loss. It was also submitted that he cannot be taken anywhere wi