Driving without a license does not equate to contributory negligence unless proven; adequate compensation must reflect actual loss without unjust deductions.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded in O.P. (MV).No.1272/2011 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, and also challenging the finding of the Tribunal that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and the consequent reduction in the award amount.

2. Claimant filed the petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , stating that on 11/07/2011 at about 7.30 p.m, while he was riding a scooter bearing registration No.KBR-1034 through Angamali-Chalakudy road and when he reached at Chirangara, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-45/E 8661 ridden by R1 in a rash and negligent manner hit on his scooter and in the said accident, he sustained serious injuries. Accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by R1, who was the owner cum rider of the said vehicle. R2 is the insurer.

3. Before the Tribunal, R1 remained ex parte.

4. R2 filed written statement admitting the insurance policy for the motorcycle, but it was contended that at the time of accident claimant had no driving license and the accident occurred due to the inexperienced driving of the claimant. It was further contended that the final report filed by the police in the said crime would also show that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. It was also contended that the compensation claimed under the different heads are excessive.

5. After trial, the learned Tribunal assessed the compensation of Rs.3,07,115/-, but 40% of the said amount was deducted on the ground that the claimant who had no driving licence also contributed to the accident and therefore, he is entitled to get only Rs.1,84,269/- with interest at the rate of 8%

per annum.

6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and also aggrieved by the finding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, this appeal has been preferred by the claimant, contending that the finding of the Tribunal that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant is a wrong finding; that the Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that 1^st respondent, who was the rider of the motorcycle, pleaded guilty before the learned Magistrate, whereas the claimant herein, who was charged was acquitted of the charges levelled against him. It was further contended that the finding of the Tribunal that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and the consequent reduction of 40% of the award amount assessed is illegal. The claimant also contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are meager and inadequate and it is not a just compensation as mandated in law.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company contended that the claimant who was riding the scooter bearing registration No.KBR-1034 at the time of the accident had no driving licence and there was contributory negligence on his part.

8. It is an admitted fact that on 11.07.2011, the claimant met with a motor vehicle accident. It is in evidence that the scooter ridden by the claimant and the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-45/E 8661 ridden by R1 collided at Chirangara and in the said accident, claimant sustained injuries.

9. Ext.A1 is the FIR registered qua the accident. There was 'A' charge and 'B' charge. Ext.A2 is the 'A' charge and Ext.A12 is the 'B' charge. Ext.A4 is the judgment in C.C.No.1676/2011 of JFCM, Chalakudy dated 21.12.2011 in respect of 'A' charge. Ext.A13 is the judgment in C.C.No.7076/2012 of