ORDER :

P. DHANABAL, J.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection have been preferred as against the fair and decreetal order, dated 13.12.2024, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Mudukulathur in M.C.O.P. No.8 of 2023.

2. The appellant in the present appeal is the second respondent and the cross objector is the claimant in the main claim petition. The claimant has filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.1,26,00,000/- for the injury sustained by him in a road accident took place on 19.11.2022. The Tribunal has passed an award for a sum of Rs.64,72,147/-. The Tribunal has fixed contributory negligence of 10% on the part of the claimant. Thereby, the second respondent / Insurance company, has preferred an appeal on the ground of negligence and quantum. The claimant has filed a Cross Objection challenging the fixation of contributory negligence of 10% and also for enhancement of compensation.

3. The case of the claimant/petitioner before the Tribunal is that the petitioner on 19.11.2022 had proceeded in his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 65 AZ 6306 along with his friends Vinothkumar and Thirumurugan. At that time, while they were going near Pambulnayakkanpatti bus stop, a two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 65 BX 6781 came in opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's vehicle and the petitioner was thrown out from the motor cycle and at that time, a lorry bearing registration No.TN 34 R 1463 came from South to North side and ran over the legs of the petitioner and his legs were crushed. Immediately, the petitioner was taken to Government Hospital, Kamuthi and he was referred to Preethi Ortho Hospital, Madurai, where he was admitted as inpatient and his both legs were amputated below thighs and he expended a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- towards medical expenses and thereafter, on 31.12.2022, he was admitted as inpatient in Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. Further, an FIR was registered in Crime No.398 of 2022 as against the rider of the two wheeler, who came in opposite side of the petitioner's vehicle. At that time of accident, the petitioner was aged about 22 years and he was working as driver and earning a sum of Rs.600/- per day and thereby, he claimed Rs.1,26,00,000/- as compensation.

4. The second respondent in the main claim petition filed a counter denying the negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler, which came from opposite side. According to the second respondent, the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner, who rode the two wheeler with triples, by breaching the rules. Therefore, the second respondent is no way liable for the accident and the petitioner is also contributed the negligence.

5. The third respondent had filed a counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. He stated that the accident took place only on the negligence of the petitioner and the rider of the two wheeler, who came in opposite side and the third respondent's lorry bearing registration No.TN 34 R 1463 is no way responsible for the accident. Further, the third respondent was not even added as accused in the FIR and hence, he is no way liable for the compensation. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed as against the third respondent.

6. On the basis of the pleadings made by the petitioner and the respondents and after hearing both sides, the Tribunal has framed the following points for determination:

1. Whether the rider of the first respondent vehicle is liable for the accident?

2. Whether the rider of the third respondent vehicle is liable for the accident?

3. Whether due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner, the accident took place?

4. Whether the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation for the petitioner?

5. Whether the third respondent is liable to pay compensation for the petitioner?

6. If so, what is the quantum of the compensation amount?

7.