Non-wearing of a helmet does not constitute contributory negligence unless evidence proves it directly contributed to the accident-related injury or fatality, and the 'pay and recover' principle remains applicable in insurance liability claims.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.)

This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Thanjavur in M.C.O.P.No.1582 of 2024 dated

26.06.2025.

2. The respondents are the claimants. The first and second respondents are the parents of the deceased and the third and fourth respondents are the sisters of the deceased. The case of the respondents is that on 09.07.2024, at about 09.45 p.m., the deceased was riding a two- wheeler and at that point of time, the offending vehicle which belongs to the sixth respondent was driven in a rash and negligent manner and it dashed on the rear side of the two wheeler, as a result of which, the deceased was thrown out of the vehicle and he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. An FIR came to be registered in Crime No.379 of 2024. It is under these circumstances, the parents and the siblings of the deceased filed the claim petition.

3. The appellant / Insurance Company took a defence that the offending vehicle was not driven in a rash and negligent manner and that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license.

Apart from that the deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident. Consequently, the appellant / Insurance Company denied their liability.

4. The Tribunal, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the offending vehicle.

5. Having rendered such finding, the Tribunal fixed the total compensation at Rs.25,64,400/- under the following heads:

6. The above compensation was directed to be paid along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. However considering the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle did not posses a valid driving license, pay and recover was ordered.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal went wrong in ordering pay and recover. The learned counsel further submitted that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, since the deceased did not wear helmet at the time of the accident. The other ground raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the compensation fixed by the Tribunal is excessive.

8. Insofar as the first ground that was raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the same is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in a batch of appeals in CMA.(MD).No. 517 of 2025 etc, dated 01.06.2026, wherein, this Court has sustained the principle pay and recover ordered by the Tribunal in similar circumstances.

9. Insofar as the issue of contributory negligence is concerned, it is now too well settled that the mere non-wearing of a helmet by itself will not constitute contributory negligence and it has to be factually proved that the non-wearing of helmet had in fact contributed to the accident which resulted in the injury or fatality of the deceased. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the entire accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. In the light of this factual finding, there is no question of attributing any contributory negligence on the deceased on the grou