Lorry parked without lights/reflectors on road at night constitutes full negligence; no contributory negligence if victim's hasty action results from created danger; notional income for young engineer moderated absent proof.

JUDGMENT :

K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

The appellant insurance company, being the third respondent in M.C.O.P. No.40 of 2024 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Ramanathapuram, has preferred the present appeal to set aside the award dated 22.09.2025, on the grounds relating to negligence and quantum of compensation.

2. Facts of the Case:

2.1. It is averred in the claim petition filed in M.C.O.P. No.40 of 2024 that, on 16.07.2023, at about 1.50 a.m., the deceased, along with six others, was travelling in a car bearing Registration No. TN-04-M-6768 along the Kanyakumari–Tirunelveli National Highway, proceeding from south to north. When the vehicle reached the Nanguneri Bridge near Krishnamputhur Village, a lorry bearing Registration No. TN-88-8046 was found parked in the middle of the road without any signal indication or parking lights. Consequently, the car driven by the deceased dashed against the said lorry. Due to the impact, the occupants of the car sustained injuries, and the deceased, Sheikh Abdullah, along with another occupant, Ameer Abbas, died on the spot, while three other occupants sustained injuries. The injured were initially admitted to the Government Hospital, Nanguneri, and thereafter referred to the Government Hospital, Tirunelveli, for further treatment. Based on the information received, the Nanguneri Police registered a case against the driver of the lorry for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 304(A) of the IPC.

2.2. The dependents of the deceased, Sheikh Abdullah, filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 40 of 2024 seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. It is stated in the petition that the deceased had completed a B.E. in Civil Engineering from Mohamed Sathak Engineering College, Kilakarai, Ramanathapuram District, and was employed as a Site Engineer with a construction company IH Constructions, Kilpauk, Chennai, from June 2021 to June 2023, earning a monthly salary of Rs. 30,000/-.

2.3. The appellant insurance company filed a counter statement denying both the occurrence of the accident and the allegation of negligence. It was contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the car driver, namely the deceased, who allegedly drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without noticing the parked lorry. The insurance company also disputed the income of the deceased.

2.4. During the trial, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P23 were marked. On the side of the appellant insurance company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

3. Finding of the Tribunal

The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, including the testimony of P.W.1, as well as the First Information Report and the final report, concluded that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal, on the basis of Exs.P9, P12 and P14, fixed the age of the deceased at 24 years. Further, taking into consideration the nature of employment of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed his monthly notional income at Rs.30,000/-. On such determination, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.61,28,000/-under the following heads:

4. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:

4.1. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal erred in fixing negligence entirely on the part of the driver of the lorry, without properly appreciating the circumstances of the case. According to the learned counsel, the de