IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on 15.12.2025 Pronounced on 02.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J.

C.M.A.No. 845 of 2023 Vinoth @ Vinoth Kumar …Appellant Vs.

1. Raghupathi

2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, By its Divisional Manager, No.7, Rosy Towers, 2nd Floor, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam 600 034 …Respondents Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988, praying for enhancement of the Award amount in MCOP No.349/2019, dated 07.12.2022, on the file of the Principal District Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perambalur.

For Appellant : Mr. C. Vidhusan For Respondents : Ms.G.Sukumari for R2 R1 – served – No appearance.

JUDGME NT

By means of this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and Award dated 07.12.2022, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Perambalur, in MCOP No.349/2019.

2. The injured had felt aggrieved as the Tribunal reduced the total compensation award by 50% for contributory negligence, which is contrary to law, weight of evidence and against all probabilities of the case.

3. The Insurance Company nor the owner have challenged the judgment. The only issue required to be decided as to whether apportioning

50% for contributory negligence by the Tribunal is sustainable.

4. Mr. C. Vidhusan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant /

injured would submit that, the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record and erroneously concluded that the rider of the two wheeler was also negligent in turning his vehicle from north towards west and thereby contributed to the accident and fixed 50% contributory negligence without any basis. He would submit that “Negligence” means failure to exercise required degree of care and caution expected of a prudent driver. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon the considerations, which ordinarily regulate conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is not always a question of direct evidence. It is an inference to be drawn from proved facts. Where there is no duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which would be reasonably foreseen likely to cause physical injury to a person. On these broad principles, the negligence of drivers is required to be assessed. To support his contention he has relied upon the following judgments: 1. Judgment dated 31.08.2021 of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in First Appeal from Order No.2651 of 2017 in the case of Smt. Shashibala and 4 others and Jogindra Singh and 2 others.

2. Judgment dated 05.02.2019 of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in First Appeal from Order No.20 of 1996 in the case of Leela and another vs. Wahid Islam and another.

5. In the present case, the driver of the offending vehicle was alone negligent and the same was established by tangible evidence. However, the Tribunal failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant / injured, which warrants interference by this Court.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent Insurance Company would submit that, the appellant / injured was riding the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the insured vehicle. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal rightly held, the appellant / injured also contributed to the accident and rightly fixed 50% contributory negligence on the part of appellant / injured and no interference is warranted.

7. Heard on both sides. Records perused.

8. According to the petitioner, the accident took place on 17.10.2018 at about 9.50 p.m., when the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider in his brother's motorcycle at Palakarai, Perambalur District, from east to west and at the time, the lorry belonging to the 1^st respondent, insured with the 2^nd resp