IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2644-2645 of 2019)

SURYA & ORS. … APPELLANTS VERSUS UNION INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. Arising out of the judgment dated 29.06.2017 of the High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench passed in CMA(MD) No. 1142/2016 and Cross Objection No. 11/2017, whereby the High Court reduced the compensation recording the findings of contributory negligence, the present appeals have been filed.

3. In the present case, the fact of death of Sivasankar in a road accident dated 10.02.2012, insurance coverage of the offending vehicle as on the date of incident are not in dispute. The Motor Accident Claims Signature Not Verified Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2025.05.09

17:09:04 IST Reason:

Tribunal (in short ‘MACT’) recorded the findings dealing the same extensively, which have been further discussed in the judgment by the High Court. Therefore, we desist to rewrite the same in the judgment and acknowledge these facts as they have been correctly recorded.

4. In the present case, after issuance of the notice when the matter came up for consideration, vide an order dated 05.05.2022 passed in these proceeding, this Court observed that the short question which would fall for our consideration is whether the finding of the High Court on the point of contributory negligence attributable to the deceased to the extent of 50% is justified?

5. For analyzing the said issue, how and in what manner the accident has taken place is required to be taken note of. On 10.02.2012 at about 09:30 PM, the deceased was driving his two-wheeler motorcycle bearing registration No. TN-74-S-8775, along with his father-in-law as pillion rider from Amanakkanvilai to Anjugramam from south to north direction and crossing the four-way lane. At the same time, another two-wheeler bearing registration No. TN-76-C-9877 which was being driven by respondent no.2 in a rash & negligent manner on the same four-way lane from west to east direction at a high speed without sounding, dashed against the two-wheeler of the deceased, resulting in deceased being thrown down and sustaining grievous injuries and later succumbed to the same.

6. The MACT after appreciating the evidence, recorded a finding in favour of the appellants and found that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent. However, the High Court in appeal of the insurance company set aside the findings of the MACT and held that the deceased was also equally responsible for the accident to the extent of 50% as he had contributed to the same by his negligence, inter-alia, it was held thus: -

“ 10. Point Nos. i and, ii As far as the negligence aspect is concerned, according to the appellant, the Tribunal has not considered negligent aspects in proper manner and fixed liability only on the rider/ first respondent. The counsel for the appellant would, further submit that the accident had occurred, not due to rash and negligent riding of the 1^st respondent whereas the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased who was the rider of the Motor cycle bearing registration No. TN 74 S 8775, Or perusal of the Motor Vehicle's inspector report Ex. P. 4 would show that the vehicle belongs to the first respondent got damaged in the said accident and the damages are clutch handle, left side front rear indicator broker, left side foot rest, gear shifting lever safe guard bend, and rear side at rear seat end broken. Whereas the vehicle belongs to the deceased got damaged in the said, accident and the damages are H/C seilied front wheel mud guard, front both indicators broken, right side petrol tank bent, right side first foot rest, left side safe guard bend backworthy, left side first foot rest, left side battery cover broken. It is also stated that the rider of offending vehicle was not having valid licence. Perusal of the Ex.P.2 Rough Sketch, which clearly prove that when