Court upheld the Tribunal's award, ruling that contributory negligence was not proven by the insurance company.

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.1317 of 2023 dated 21.01.2025, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Thanjavur.

2.The petitioner is the Insurance Company. The first respondent is the minor injured boy, on behalf of whom his mother filed a motor accident claim in M.C.O.P.No.1317 of 2023, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Thanjavur. After trial, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3.Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent's father has driven the motorcycle along with his two children and due to triple riding, he dashed against a TATA ACE vehicle insured with the petitioner, thereby the accident happened. However, without considering the fact that three persons travelled in the motorcycle, the Tribunal has erroneously awarded the compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the first respondent. On this sole ground, this revision petition has been filed. In support of this submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in C.M.A.(MD)No.1339 of

2008 dated 13.08.2024.

4.Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the respondents, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

5.A perusal of the entire records reveals that on 02.10.2023, when the first respondent's father Balanagendran, rode his motor cycle bearing Regn. No.TN 68 C 1431 along with his two children, from east to west on the left extreme side of the road, at that time, at about 07.00 p.m., a TATA Ace vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN 49 AF 3471, which came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcyle driven by the first respondent's father and thus, the accident occurred. However, the petitioner claims that the accident had happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's father. In order to prove the negligence, the first respondent marked the FIR as Ex.C1 and Accident Register was marked as Ex.C2 and driving licence of the deceased Balanagendran is marked as Ex.C.5.

6.This Court perused the materials available on record.

7.A perusal of the FIR reveals that the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the vehicle insured with the petitioner. A perusal of the AR copy shows as if the motor cycle dashed against the TATA ACE vehicle and hence, the accident happened. However, the informant of the AR copy was not examined before the Tribunal and further, the petitioner insurance company has not examined any of the evidences. Without examining any of the witnesses, merely stating that three persons travelled in the motorcycle, the petitioner insurance company cannot claim for contributory negligence. Unless the insurance company establishes the same before the Tribunal that only due to triple riding, the accident happened, contributory negligence cannot be attributed. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

8.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.