THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTI CE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.328 OF 2023 JUDGMENT:-

This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company aggrieved by the order, dated 24.06.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.3160 of 2016 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/claim petitioner filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- at 18% per annum on account of death of one D.Shekar in a road traffic accident. The claim petitioner is the mother of the deceased D.Shekar. On 28.08.2016 at 5.45 A.M. when the deceased was proceeding on his Yamaha FZS bearing No.TS 02 EA 4081 from Parvada to Pashamailaram and when he reached near main gate of Teja Venture in the limits of Indrakaranam Village, the Splendor motorcycle bearing No.TS 15 EJ 1807 driven by its rider in high speed came in opposite direction and dashed the vehicle of the deceased resulting in multiple grievous injuries all over his body and died on the spot. In the circumstances, respondent No.1 filed the claim petition. The claim petitioner got examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 and Exs.X1 to X3. The appellant/respondent No.3 has got examined R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B1-copy of insurance policy. Upon examining the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.18,99,761/- with interest at 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company preferred the present appeal.

4. In grounds of appeal, the impugned order is challenged on two grounds i.e., 1) the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of accident and the collision occurred due to impact between two vehicles; hence, contributory negligence on the part of the deceased must be taken into consideration and 2) awarding of future prospects at 40% when there was no security for the job of the deceased.

5. During arguments in appeal, learned counsel for the appellant insisted that there was negligence on the part of the deceased as he was not wearing helmet and since there was head on collision, the contributory negligence has to be taken into consideration. While so, learned counsel for respondent No.1 pleaded that not wearing of helmet need not be a ground to infer violation of terms and conditions of the policy or negligence and in that regard relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Anjana Narayan Kamble v. Branch Manager, Reliance General I nsurance Company Limited, ACJ-2023-0-346 wherein it is held that, “The fact that the deceased was riding on a motor cycle along with the driver and another, may not, by itself, without anything more, make him guilty of contributory negligence. At the most it would make him guilty of being a party to the violation of the law. Sec.128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, imposes a restriction on the driver of a two wheeled motor cycle, not to carry more than one person on the motor cycle. Sec.194C inserted by the Amendment Act 32 of 2019, prescribes a penalty for violation of safety measures for motor cycle drivers and pillion riders. Therefore, the fact that a person was a pillion rider on a motor cycle along with the driver and one more person on the pillion, may be a violation of the law. But such violation by itself, without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is established that his very act of riding along with two others, contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim. There must either be a causal connection between the violation and the accident or a casual connection between the violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim. It may so happen at times, that the accident could have been averted or the injuries sustained could have been of a lesser degree, if there had been no violation of the law by the victim. What co