Mere violation of safety regulations does not constitute contributory negligence unless shown to directly correlate with the accident's occurrence.

4.Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:

Challenging the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant–

Insurance Company raised two principal contentions. Firstly, it is contended that the learned Tribunal failed to consider contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. According to the appellant, the deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident and had sustained fatal head injuries; therefore, a reasonable percentage ought to have been deducted towards contributory negligence. Secondly, it is contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in deducting only one-fourth towards personal expenses instead of one-third, thereby inflating the multiplier. It is further contended that the amount awarded under the head “loss of estate” is on the higher side and requires reduction.

5.Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent:

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal, in fact, erred in not granting adequate amount for future prospects. It is contended that since the deceased was employed as a Head Constable, the addition towards future prospects ought to have been higher. However, no cross-appeal has been preferred by the claimants. It is further submitted that the overall compensation awarded is just and reasonable and does not warrant interference.

6. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal:

7.1.Whether the deceased in anyway contributed to the accident, thereby warranting deduction towards contributory negligence, 7.2.Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires interference.

8.Discussion on negligence:

P.W.2, an independent eyewitness examined on the side of the claimants, has categorically deposed that the offending lorry, while overtaking another vehicle, was driven in a rash and negligent manner and veered into the wrong side of the road, and collided with the two-wheeler ridden by the deceased, who was proceeding on the extreme left side of the road. The said testimony stands corroborated by the rough sketch prepared during the course of investigation, which clearly indicates that the lorry had crossed over to the opposite lane.

8.1.On a careful appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding of negligence recorded by the learned Tribunal.

9. Contention regarding Non-Wearing of Helmet:

The principal contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident and, having sustained fatal head injuries, a proportionate deduction ought to be made towards contributory negligence on account of violation of the statutory provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act. This contention, in the considered view of this Court, is legally untenable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is a well-settled principle that mere violation of statutory provisions, such as non-wearing of a helmet, does not ipso facto confer a right upon the tortfeasor to plead contributory negligence, unless it is established that such violation had a direct nexus with the occurrence of the accident. It is also pertinent to note that the object of wearing a helmet is primarily a safety measure intended to minimize or prevent the severity of head injuries. It does not, in any manner, prevent the happening of the accident. Therefore, the non wearing of a helmet cannot be construed as a causative factor for the accident itself. Though in certain earlier decisions,this Courts have, in peculiar factual circumstances,