The court affirmed contributory negligence allocation and recalibrated compensation based on assessed disability and income documentation, emphasizing the need for evidence in negligence claims.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the 3^rd respondent/insurance company in O.P.(MV) No.251 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara, challenging the finding of 75% contributory negligence on the part of the rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-18C-8870, insured with the appellant. The respondents 1 and 2 herein were the respondents, and the 3^rd respondent herein was the claimant before the Tribunal. Cross Objection No.205 of 2019 in the appeal has been filed by the claimant, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and challenging the contributory negligence of 25% on the part of the claimant, in the impugned award.

2. According to the claimant, on 18.08.2007 at about 12.45 p.m., while the claimant was driving a Maruthi car bearing Reg. No.KL-18-C 9296, a motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KL-18C-8870, driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent hit the car whereby, the car turned turtle, due to which the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹8,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 who were the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent, insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. It was further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A14 and Ext.B1 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant to the extent of 25%. Consequently, the claimant was held entitled to only 75% of the total compensation of ₹6,46,740/-, which comes to ₹4,85,055/- as compensation under different heads with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer. Challenging the finding of 75% contributory negligence, the 3^rd respondent/insurer has come up in appeal, whereas the claimant filed the cross objection dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and challenged the 25% contributory negligence found against the claimant.

4. I have heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company and the learned counsel appearing for the cross objector/claimant.

5. Pursuant to the filing of this appeal, on 26.06.2025, this Court directed the cross objector to appear before the Medical Board for assessing the whole body disability, if any. Thereafter, the cross objector appeared before the medical board and his disability was assessed. The learned Government Pleader produced the disability certificate along with a memo dated 21.11.2025 issued by the Medical College Hospital, Calicut. In the certificate, the date was mistakenly noted as 29.08.2027. The said mistake in the date was corrected as 29.08.2025, and the corrected certificate was produced before this Court, along with the memo dated 14.01.2026. In the said certificate, the Medical Board has assessed the permanent disability of the appellant/claimant as 40%. The functional activity limitations were assessed, and details of the examination are given in the report, and thus the medical board assessed the permanent disability at 40%.

6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that there was no collision between the motorcycle insured with them and the car. The accident occurred when the cross objector/claimant applied sudden b