CMA/3533/2026 of L.Ponnusamy Vs R.Balakrishnan on 27 October 2026

ORDER

Unsuccessful claimant has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and challenging the fixation of contributory negligence on his part.

2. Claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant, in a road accident.

3. According to the claimant, on 06.09.2017, at about 3.30 p.m., near the Registration Office of Velagoundanpatti, on the Namakkal–Tiruchengode Road, he was riding his two-wheeler from east to west on the left side of the road, with his wife as the pillion rider. At that time, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. TN 52 B 7183, which was proceeding from west to east in the opposite direction, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly turned right without giving any signal, thereby hitting the claimant's two-wheeler and causing the accident, due to the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries, including a head injury with cerebral haemorrhage and blood clots and serious injury to his right big toe, and other injuries all over his body.

4. The first respondent, being the owner of the offending vehicle, remained absent and was set ex parte before the Tribunal.

5. The second respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter statement denying the manner of the accident as alleged by the claimant. It was contended that the driver of the lorry, while proceeding from west to east, had suddenly taken a U-turn on the main road and that the claimant, who was riding his two- wheeler in a rash and negligent manner, had hit the rear side of the lorry. According to the second respondent, the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the claimant, who was responsible for the accident. It was further contended that the second respondent was not liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

6. Before the Tribunal, the claimant was examined himself as P.W.1, Dr.Palanivel was examined as P.W.2, and an eyewitness was examined as P.W.3 and Exs.P1 to P14 were marked. On behalf of the second respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex. R1 was marked.

7. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal found that the claimant had hit the rear side of the offending vehicle. However, it also observed that the driver of the offending vehicle ought to have exercised due care and caution before turning across the road and that the accident could have been averted had he verified the movement of other vehicles on the road. Accordingly, the Tribunal fixed contributory negligence at 50% on the part of the claimant and 50% on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads as hereunder:- S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount awarded by the Tribunal

Permanent disability Rs 80,000/-

Medical expenses Rs. 14,742/-

Pain and sufferings Rs. 30,000/-

Attender charges Rs. 1,500/-

Transportation Rs. 5,000/-

Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000/-

Loss of income Rs. 4,500/- Total Deduction of 50% for contributory negligence Compensation payable Rs.1,45,742/- Rs, 72,871/- ----------------- Rs. 72,871/- -----------------

8. Aggrieved by the finding, fixing 50% contributory negligence on his part and seeking enhancement of compensation, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit that the Tribunal erred in fixing 50% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. According to the learned counsel, the offending vehicle, while proceeding from west to east, suddenly turned right towards the southern side in an attempt to cross the road, thereby causing the accident. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erroneously relied upon the closure of the criminal case by the police as a mistake of fact and failed to properly appreciate the evidence of the eyewitness. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, is inadequate and ought to be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. It is also contended that the amounts awarded towards extra nourishment and attendant charges are meagre and require enhancement.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the claimant, while riding his two-wheeler from east to west, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the rear side of the lorry. Therefore, it is contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the claimant. The learned counsel would further submit that, upon considering the evidence of R.W.1 and the other materials available on record, the Tribunal rightly fixed contributory negligence at 50% on the part of the claimant. With regard to the quantum of compensation, it is submitted that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the various heads are just and reasonable and does not warrant any interference.

11. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

12. According to the claimant, on 06.09.2017, at about 3.30 p.m., while he was riding his two-wheeler from east to west along with his wife as the pillion rider, the offending vehicle, which was proceeding from west to east in the opposite direction, was driven in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly turned right without giving any signal, thereby causing the accident. In support of his contention regarding negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the claimant relied upon the testimony of P.W.3, the eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W.3 deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle suddenly turned towards the right side of the road without giving any signal and that the accident occurred due to his negligence of the said driver.

13. It is relevant to note that the offending vehicle is a Taurus lorry, which is longer than an ordinary lorry. Though the claimant's two-wheeler hit the rear side of the offending vehicle, the driver of the lorry ought to have exercised due care and caution before turning and crossing the road. If the driver of the offending vehicle, verified the movement of other vehicles on the road and taken the necessary precautions before making the turn, the accident could have been averted. At the same time, the claimant, who was riding the two-wheeler, was also expected to maintain a proper lookout and control his vehicle to avoid colliding with the lorry, if possible.

14. However, it is relevant to note that neither the driver of the offending vehicle nor any other independent witness was examined to establish that the claimant has also contributed to the occurrence of the accident. In the absence of such evidence, and considering the testimony of P.W.3 that the driver of the offending vehicle suddenly turned towards the right without giving any signal, this Court is of the considered view that the fixation of 50% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant is excessive. Accordingly, the contributory negligence is re-fixed at 40% on the part of the claimant and 60% on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

15. With regard to the quantum of compensation, it is relevant to note that the claimant did not appear before the Medical Board for assessment of his disability and relied upon the Disability Certificate issued by the doctor, marked as Ex. P14. As per evidence of P.W.2, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and suffered permanent disability assessed at 16%. A perusal of the discharge summary marked as Ex.P9 indicates that the claimant was treated conservatively. In the circumstances, the Tribunal adopted a sum of Rs.5,000/- for each percentage of disability and awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x 16%) towards permanent disability.

16. The Tribunal also took into consideration the period of inpatient treatment and awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges. The compensation awarded under the other heads also appears to be reasonable and does not warrant interference. Therefore, except for the modification of the finding regarding contributory negligence, the award passed by the Tribunal does not call for any further interference.

17. In view of the forgoing discussion, the award passed by the Tribunal warrants modification only with regard to the contributory negligence and the compensation awarded under the other heads is confirmed.

18. In the result,

i) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.

ii) The award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above.

iii) The second respondent / Insurance Company is directed to deposit 60% of the total compensation of Rs.1,45,742/- awarded by the Tribunal, amounting to Rs.87,445.20/- rounded off to Rs.87,445/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit (excluding the default period, if any,) to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.596

of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Presiding Officer/Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases, Registered under SC/CT (POA) Act, Namakkal, (less amount already deposited if any) within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

iv) On such deposit being made, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified award amount along with the interest and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal.

v) The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to the mode of payment of compensation remains unaltered.

vi) The manner and mode of disbursement of compensation shall be as per the order of the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. 27.10.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KKD

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J. KKD To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai. CMA No. 3533 of 2026 27-10-2026