JUDGMENT :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

1. Challenging the award of the trial Court fixing 40% negligence each on both the Insurance Companies, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed. The Cross Objection has been filed by the claimants for enhancement as well as challenging the Tribunal fixing 20% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are as follows:

The deceased Kumaravel Rajan, aged about 46 years, was working in Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Limited and was earning a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- per month as salary. While so, on 09.07.2018, at about 09.00 am, when he was travelling in his motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-67-AJ-7080 from North to South near Railway Gate at Thudialur, the first respondent, who was coming in the South-North direction, drew his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-38-CK-7240 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased, as a result of which, Kumaravel Rajan fell down from the two wheeler. At that time, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-47-P-7884, which was coming behind the two wheeler of the deceased came in a rash and negligent manner and ran over the deceased due to which he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the wife, two children and parents of the deceased have filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

3. It is the case of the second and third respondents that first respondent is no way responsible for causing the accident and it is only the deceased, who drove the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and without wearing helmet. The sixth respondent has filed a counter stating that it is for the claimants to prove the fact that the fourth respondent was in possession of valid Driving Licence and also denied the manner of accident.

4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P17 were marked and on the side of the respondents, RW1 and RW2 were examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. On behalf of the employer, Exs.X1 to X7 were marked through third party.

5. Based on the above pleadings, following issues were framed by the trial Court:

i) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-38-CK-7240 and driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-47-P-7884?

ii) Whether the deceased Kumaravel Rajan drove the two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN67-AJ-7080 in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident?

iii) Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation? If so, to what extent?

6. The Tribunal, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, fixed 40% negligence on the part of offending two wheeler and 40% negligence on the part of the lorry proceeding behind the two wheeler and also 20% on the deceased since he did not wear the helmet at the time of accident.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance companies mainly would submit that if Ex.P2-Rough Sketch is carefully seen, 40% negligence ought not to have been fixed on the Insurance Companies and negligence ought to have been fixed only on the deceased and therefore, 20% negligence fixed on the deceased has to be increased.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the Tribunal fixed 20% negligence on the deceased without any evidence. In fact, the deceased was wearing helmet and this has been clearly admitted in the evidence. That apart, the deceased was proceeding from North to South direction keeping the left side of road whereas the first respondent driver came in the South to North direction. In fact, the first respondent came on the extreme right side of the road and hit against the two wheeler in which the deceased was travelling, due to the said impact, the deceased fell down and at that time, the lorry which was coming behind the two wheeler of the deceased, without maintaining