The court emphasized just compensation post-accident by adjusting the initially awarded amount, reinforcing the significance of negligent parties in determining liability and ensuring just outcomes in accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

C.M.A. 3624/2025 has been filed by the Appellant/Insurance Company questioning the negligence and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No.4898 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. Cross Objection in Cros.Obj. No.3 of 2026 has been filed by the Appellants/claimants seeking to enhance the compensation awarded in the said Award.

3. Both the matters arise out of the same accident and the same Award and hence, disposed of by this common judgment.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the claim petition.

5. The claimants have filed MCOP No.4898/2019 on the file of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai, claiming a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation for the death of their son A. Karuppaiah.

6. According to the claimants, on 04.07.2019, at about 11.30 hours, while the victim was riding a Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-09-CF 6682 from south to north direction along Anna Arch Flyover, opposite to Tamil Nadu Medical Plant Farms and Herbal Medicine Corporation, a car bearing Registration No. TN-13-L-4466 coming behind on the same direction suddenly overtook the Motorcycle and applied sudden brake, as a result of which, the victim lost control and collided with the side protection wall of the bridge and fell form the over bridge and sustained multiple injuries all over body. He was taken to Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital, Chennai, where he succumbed to injuries on 07.07.2019. The accident occurred only due to the negligent act of the driver of the car. Hence, the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

7. The claim is resisted by the 2^nd Respondent/Insurance Company stating that, the rider of the motorcycle came in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the rear left side of the car, lost control and fell down from the bridge and succumbed to his injuries and that the 1^st respondent’s car was not involved in the accident. Hence, the 2^nd Respondent Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

8. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and considering the evidence available on record, concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent's driver to an extent of 70% and the deceased to an extent of 30% and accordingly, awarded compensation as hereunder:

9. Questioning the contributory negligence fixed by the tribunal and the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company has filed C.M.A.No.No.3624/2025 and the Claimants have filed Cros. Obj. No.3 of 2026.

10. Mr. S.Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in CMA 3624/2025 argued that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased rider of the motorcycle who is the tortfeasor, who not only drove the motor cycle in a reckless manner but also without maintaining a proper distance while following the vehicle as mandated by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and hence the apportionment of liability to an extent of 70% on the appellant by the Tribunal is erroneous. The Tribunal ought to have apportioned some more extent on the deceased who is the tortfeasor. He would submit that the rider of the motorcycle moving beh