IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.03.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR CMA.No.700 of 2025 Venkatesh ... Appellant Vs.

1.A.Vijayakumar

2.The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Office, No.39-C, Bye Pass Road, Dharmapuri.

... Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the decree and judgment dated 07.12.2022 passed in MCOP.No.288 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri.

For Appellant :Mr.S.P.Yuaraj For Respondents :Mr.J.Chandran for R2 Notice dispensed with for R1 J U D G M E N T Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the claimant/appellant has come before this Court by way of this appeal.

2. It is not in dispute that the appellant/claimant suffered injury in a road accident that had taken place on 19.02.2018. It is the case of the appellant that he was riding his TVS XL Heavy Duty Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 70/H-5353 in Rayakottai to Hosur road along with one Arjunan as a pillion rider. At that point of time, the lorry belonging to the first respondent insured with the 2^nd respondent bearing Registration No.TN 29/AU 7150 came in the opposite direction and dashed against two wheeler of the claimant. As a result of which, the claimant sustained serious injuries. Therefore, the claim petition was filed by the claimant seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent/owner of the lorry remained ex-parte before the Tribunal and the claim petition was contested by the insurer of the lorry/ second respondent. It was stated by the second respondent in its counter that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the claimant. It was also stated that contributory negligence should be fixed on the claimant for not producing the valid driving licence and the registration certificate for his vehicle at the time of the accident.

4. Based on the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle insured with the second respondent. The compensation amount payable to the claimant was quantified at Rs.2,55,000/-, after deducting the 15% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant has come before this Court.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit that failure to produce the valid driving license, registration certificate cannot be a ground for fixing contributory negligence. The learned counsel further submitted that the second respondent in its counter has not raised any plea regarding non wearing of helmet. However, the Tribunal on its own assumed that the claimant did not wear the helmet at the time of accident and hence, fixed contributory negligence on the part of the claimant.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent Insurance Company submits that failure to possess driving licence and registration certificate are serious violation of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. He also submits failure to wear helmet shall be treated as negligence and hence, the Tribunal was justified in fixing contributory negligence at 15%. As far as quantum is considered, the learned counsel submits that the claimant was in hospital only for two days and hence the amount granted by Tribunal was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. As far as non wearing of helmet is concerned, the second respondent failed to raise a plea regarding alleged failure of claimant to wear helmet at the time of accident. More and above, the second respondent, even during the cross examination of claimant as PW.1 has not even suggested to him regarding non wearing of helmet. In the absence of any definite stand regarding non wearing of helmet it cannot be assumed that the injury was caused to the claimant due to the