(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree passed in M.C.O.P. No.1143 of 2021, dated 28.11.2024, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai).)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 28.11.2024, passed in M.C.O.P. No.1143 of 2021, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai), whereby and where under, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.12,14,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs and Fourteen Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, aggrieved by which, the appellants have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The facts in brief are as follows:

The 1st appellant is the mother, 2nd appellant is the brother and 3rd appellant is the sister of the deceased Mr. S. Vasanthan. The claimants/appellants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs.49,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a road accident that occurred on 27.10.2019 at about 16.00 hours at 200 Feet Road, Chinna Mathur, near HP Petrol Bunk, Chennai. It is alleged that while the deceased was riding a two-wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 03 V 5668, a Lorry bearing Registration No. TN 04 AU 6181 belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent was parked on the road side without any parking indicator or signal. As a result, the deceased collided with the stationary lorry, sustained grievous injuries and died on the way to the hospital.

3. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed before it, awarded a total compensation of Rs.24,28,000/- and deducted 50% towards contributory negligence on the ground that the deceased was carrying two pillion riders at the time of the accident (triples riding), thereby reducing the compensation payable to Rs.12,14,000/-. The Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-, applied the multiplier of 18, and added 40% towards future prospects.

4. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the appellants have preferred this appeal on the following grounds:

                     (i) that the Tribunal erred in fixing 50% contributory negligence on the deceased in the absence of oral or documentary evidence;

                     (ii) that the Tribunal erroneously fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month, whereas it ought to have been fixed at Rs.25,000/- per month;

                     (iii) that the Tribunal failed to award fair and adequate compensation towards various heads including loss of love and affection; and

                     (iv) that the award is inadequate, contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court.

5. Heard on both sides and records perused.

6. Mr.K.Balaji, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the 1st claimant's son S.Vasanthan met with a motor accident on 27.10.2019 and therefore, the claimants filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.49,00,000/-, in which the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12,14,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum as compensation. Dissatisfied with the said award, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred for enhancement of compensation. The learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence and erroneously fixed contributory negligence in the absence of concrete evidence. He would submit that the mere fact that the deceased was riding a motor cycle along with two persons may not, by itself, without anything more, make him guilty of contributory negligence. To support his contention, he has relied upon the judgment in

                     (i) 2022 (1) TNMAC 152 (SC)

                     (ii) 2025 (2) TNMAC 355

                     (iii) 2023 ACJ 2390

                     (iv) 2016 (1) TNMAC 204(DB). (KER)

                     (v) Civil Appeal No.79 of 2020 dated 08.01.2020.

Further, the learned counsel submitted that the income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per month is very low and therefore, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, Mr.S.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the deceased was riding a motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN 03 V 5668 along with two other persons in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, and had also been driving the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules, and hit behind the 1st respondent's lorry which was parked by its driver. Hence, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle. Further, the rider of the motor cycle did not possess a valid driving license to drive the motor cycle on the date of the accident. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The learned Tribunal, appreciating the materials on record in proper perspective, rightly fixed 50% contributory negligence on the rider of the motor cycle/deceased. To support his contention, he has relied upon the judgments in: (i) Nishan Singh and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance co. Ltd, and others reported in (2018) 6 SCC 765

                     (ii) C.M.A.No.1589 of 2023 dated 12.06.2025

                     (iii)C.M.A.No.1507 of 2015 dated 09.07.2020

                     (iv) C.M.A(MD)Nos.1029 & 1030 of 20211 dated 10.09.2024

                     (v) C.M.A(MD) No.1105 of 2023 dated 07.11.2023

                     (vi) C.M.A(MD).No.1130 of 2023 dated 19.10.2023

8. On perusal of the records, it is seen that there is no specific evidence regarding the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle merely by reason of his carrying two persons on the two wheeler. Moreover, the eye witness has deposed that the two-wheeler driver was not negligent, and since there is no rebuttal evidence let in to indicate the negligence of the two-wheeler driver, the Tribunal erred in holding the rider of the two-wheeler guilty of contributory negligence. Accordingly, the deduction of 50% towards contributory negligence made by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the appellants are entitled to the gross compensation of Rs.24,28,000/-.

9. As regards the income of the deceased, on perusal of the records, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month, which is in accordance with the guidelines laid down by this Court for accidents of the year 2019, and the same does not warrant any interference.

10. In the light of the above findings, the deduction of 50% contributory negligence is set aside. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.24,28,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs and Twenty Eight Thousand Only) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.12,14,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. The Judgment and Decree dated 28.11.2024, passed in M.C.O.P. No.1143 of 2021, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai), is modified as follows:

(i) The appellants/claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.24,28,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs and Twenty Eight Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization.

(ii) The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance compensation amount, after deducting the amount already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.1143 of 2021, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai.

(iii)The appellants are not entitled to any interest for the default period in filing this appeal.

(iv)The appellants are at liberty to withdraw their share, as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal with costs and interest, after filing a proper petition for withdrawal.