50:50 negligence apportionment upheld; professional drivers owe higher care duty despite claimant's wrong-side riding.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on 16.02.2026 Pronounced on: 24.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI C.M.A.No.202 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.2437 of 2026 The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Angeripalayam Road, (Now at Palladam Road), Tiruppur District.

…Appellant Vs.

Devi, W/o. Nataraj, aged about 50 years, residing at 22/52, Thannir Thotti Veethi, Palladam Tk, Samalapuram, Tiruppur District.

…Respondent/Petitioner Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1992 of 2018 dated 03.10.2024 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court to deal with MCOP Cases, Tiruppur.

For Appellant : Mr. P.Gurunathan, Additional Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the award in M.C.O.P.No.1992 of 2018 dated 03.10.2024 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court to deal with MCOP Cases, Tiruppur.

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

3. Shortly stated, on 12.07.2018 at about 2.00 p.m., the deceased Nataraj was travelling on his two-wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 42 J 2952 along with his wife Devi as pillion rider, near the Iyengar Bakery at Kaniyur Toll Gate. The Eicher Van bearing Registration No. TN 39 G 0284 belonging to the respondent / Superintendent of Police came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the two-wheeler. As a result, Devi (the claimant/petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.1992 of 2018) sustained grievous head injury on the right side of her head and multiple fracture injuries, resulting in 35%

permanent disability as per the medical board report (Ex.C1). She cannot walk as before and cannot lift her hand as before. Her husband Nataraj succumbed to the injuries. Devi filed M.C.O.P.No.1992 of 2018 seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the grievous injuries sustained by her.

4. The claim was resisted by the Superintendent of Police contending that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased rider Nataraj, as he was riding on the wrong side of the road near the toll gate, thereby contributing to the accident.

5. The Claims Tribunal, after framing necessary issues and on analyzing the oral and documentary evidence including the CCTV footage (Ex.X3) and the rough sketch (Ex.R1), concluded that the accident occurred when the deceased had taken a wrong route near the toll gate, but that the respondent’s driver had noticed the two-wheeler from a distance and could have taken evasive action to avoid the accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal apportioned negligence at 50:50 between the deceased rider’s side and the respondent’s driver. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the claimant Devi at Rs.10,000/- and awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,30,000/- (after applying the 50:50 ratio) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

6. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal erred in fixing the negligence at 50:50. He would contend that the CCTV footage (Ex.X3) and the rough sketch (Ex.R1) clearly establish that the deceased was riding on the wrong side of the road and was solely responsible for the accident, and hence the proper apportionment of negligence ought to have been 100:0 as against the deceased. He would further submit that the Tribunal erroneously shifted the burden of proof on the appellant to disprove the negligence of the deceased when