Contributory negligence in motor accident cases requires proving a causal connection between a statutory violation or specific action and the occurrence or severity of the accident, rather than merely attributing negligence based on technical traffic violations or assuming fault for rear-end collisions.

JUDGMENT

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.1112 of 2023 dated 03.07.2025 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special Subordinate Court to deal with MCOP cases, Thanjavur.

2. The appellant / claimant, who was awarded with compensation of Rs.8,49,418/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Eighteen only) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit for the disability suffered by him, consequent to an accident occurred on 13.08.2023, challenged the contributory negligence mulcted on him and also the quantum of compensation awarded at, by the Tribunal and claimed enhancement of the same.

3. The case of the appellant is that on 13.08.2023 at about

04.30 p.m., when the appellant was riding his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-49-BR-3024 near petrol bunk in Thirukanurpatti Arpudhapuram in Pudukottai – Thanjavur road, another two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-55-BH-6347 was proceeding in front of the appellant's two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and that the said two wheeler suddenly came towards right side and dashed against the appellant's two wheeler and as a result of which, the appellant sustained injuries.

4. The defence of the second respondent / insurer is that the appellant as well as the first respondent's two wheeler rider had no driving license, that the appellant was riding his two wheeler with two children and that the appellant rode his two wheeler speedily and dashed against the first respondent's two wheeler.

5. During trial, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and exhibited 21 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. The second respondent examined their Legal Officer as R.W.1 and exhibited 7 documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R7. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board came to be exhibited as Ex.C1.

6. The learned trial Judge, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned award dated 03.07.2025 by holding that both the appellant as well as the first respondent's two wheeler rider are responsible for the accident and attributed 40% contributory negligence on the appellant and awarded Rs.8,49,418/- as compensation with interest and costs. Challenging the impugned award fixing contributory negligence at 40%

on the appellant, the present appeal came to be filed.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that mere fact that the appellant was travelling with his two minor children does not constitute contributory negligence unless the respondents prove that such act had a direct causal connection with the accident but no such evidence was adduced by the respondents to prove the contributory negligence on the appellant, that the award of the Tribunal in fixing 40% contributory negligence on the appellant for triple riding is only on assumption and presumption or conjectures without any iota of evidence and as such, the award is illegal, that riding with more than one pillion rider is only a statutory violation and does not automatically fasten negligence, that the appellant had clearly deposed that the first respondent's rider suddenly swerved right without signal causing the collision and such sudden and rash movement by the offending vehicle is the proximate cause of the accident, that the Tribunal wrongly presumed negligence on the ground that the appellant's vehicle hit from behind as hitting fr