Triple riding alone does not constitute contributory negligence without specific evidence of negligence.

ORDER

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 28.11.2024, passed in M.C.O.P. No.1143 of 2021, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai), whereby and where under, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.12,14,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs and Fourteen Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, aggrieved by which, the appellants have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2.The facts in brief are as follows:

The 1st appellant is the mother, 2nd appellant is the brother and 3rd appellant is the sister of the deceased Mr. S. Vasanthan. The claimants/appellants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs.49,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a road accident that occurred on 27.10.2019 at about 16.00 hours at 200 Feet Road, Chinna Mathur, near HP Petrol Bunk, Chennai. It is alleged that while the deceased was riding a two-wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 03 V 5668, a Lorry bearing Registration No. TN 04 AU 6181 belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent was parked on the road side without any parking indicator or signal. As a result, the deceased collided with the stationary lorry, sustained grievous injuries and died on the way to the hospital.

3.The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed before it, awarded a total compensation of Rs.24,28,000/- and deducted 50% towards contributory negligence on the ground that the deceased was carrying two pillion riders at the time of the accident (triples riding), thereby reducing the compensation payable to Rs.12,14,000/-. The Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-, applied the multiplier of 18, and added 40% towards future prospects.

4.Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the appellants have preferred this appeal on the following grounds:

(i) that the Tribunal erred in fixing 50% contributory negligence on the deceased in the absence of oral or documentary evidence;

(ii) that the Tribunal erroneously fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month, whereas it ought to have been fixed at Rs.25,000/- per month;

(iii) that the Tribunal failed to award fair and adequate compensation towards various heads including loss of love and affection; and (iv) that the award is inadequate, contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court. 5.Heard on both sides and records perused.

6.Mr.K.Balaji, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the 1st claimant's son S.Vasanthan met with a motor accident on 27.10.2019 and therefore, the claimants filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.49,00,000/-, in which the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12,14,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum as compensation. Dissatisfied with the said award, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred for enhancement of compensation. The learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence and erroneously fixed contributory negligence in the absence of concrete evidence. He would submit that the mere fact that the deceased was riding a motor cycle along with two persons may not, by itself, without anything more, make him guilty of contributory negligence. To support his contention, he has relied upon the judgmen