CMA(MD)/864/2022 of THE MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs ALAGAMANI on 2 November 2026

JUDGEMENT

The respondent/Transport Corporation in M.C.O.P. No.644 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Special Court, Pudukkottai has filed the present C.M.A.(MD). No. 864 of 2022, challenging the award dated 06.01.2022.

2. Facts of the case:

2.1. The claimants in M.C.O.P. No.644 of 2018 are the dependants of the deceased Ramesh. According to the claim petition, on 29.07.2018, at about 12.35 p.m., the deceased was riding a two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-67- BX-1009, with his friend travelling as a pillion rider. At that time, the appellant/Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No. TN-55-N-0724, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against the two- wheeler. In the said accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The dependants thereafter filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.2 crores.

2.2. It was stated that the deceased was aged about 29 years and was employed in a tractor company, earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month. The appellant/Transport Corporation resisted the claim petition, disputing the manner of the accident as well as the quantum of compensation. It was specifically contended that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Transport Corporation bus.

2.3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On the side of the respondent/Transport Corporation, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.R1 was marked.

3. Findings of the Tribunal:

3.1. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Transport Corporation bus and awarded a sum of Rs.13,55,200/- as compensation, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. Sl.No Heads Amount in Rs.

Loss of Income 12,85,200/-

Loss of Amenities 15,000/-

Loss of Love and Affection 40,000/-

Funeral Expenses 15,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.13,55,200/-

3.2. Aggrieved by the said award, the Transport Corporation has preferred the present appeal.

4. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation:

4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the deceased was riding the two-wheeler without wearing a helmet and that the FIR itself had been registered against the deceased. It was therefore contended that the deceased had also contributed to the occurrence of the accident and that the entire negligence could not have been fastened upon the driver of the Transport Corporation bus. The learned counsel further submitted that the evidence of R.W.1, the driver of the bus, was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal and sought re-appreciation of the evidence on record.

5. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants:

5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal, upon considering the evidence of P.W.2, who had spoken about the occurrence, had rightly fixed the negligence upon the driver of the Transport Corporation bus. It was further submitted that the mere registration of an FIR against the deceased cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof of negligence on the part of the deceased. Hence, the learned counsel sought dismissal of the appeal.

6. This Court considered the submissions made on either side and perused the records.

7. The following point arises for consideration:

(i) Whether the deceased Ramesh had also contributed to the occurrence of the accident and, if so, to what extent?

8. Discussion and Findings:

8.1. P.W.2 has spoken about the manner of the accident and attributed negligence to the driver of the Transport Corporation bus. At the same time, it is not in dispute that the FIR came to be registered against the deceased. R.W.1, the driver of the Transport Corporation bus, has also been examined. He has specifically deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased.

8.2. The evidence of R.W.1, in this regard, cannot be completely brushed aside, particularly when it receives some corroboration from the fact that the FIR was registered against the deceased. This Court is conscious of the settled principle that the registration of an FIR, by itself, is not conclusive proof of negligence. Nevertheless, it is a relevant circumstance which has to be considered along with the other evidence available on record.

8.3. Another relevant circumstance is that the deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident. The deceased sustained fatal head injuries in the occurrence. Therefore, non-wearing of a helmet assumes significance while examining the issue of contributory negligence. The Tribunal, however, has not properly considered these circumstances in proper perspective.

8.4. Having regard to the evidence of P.W.2, the evidence of R.W.1, the registration of the FIR against the deceased and, more particularly, the admitted circumstance that the deceased was not wearing a helmet and sustained fatal head injuries, this Court is of the view that some degree of contributory negligence has to be attributed to the deceased.

8.5. At the same time, the materials available on record do not warrant shifting the entire responsibility for the accident upon the deceased. On an overall appreciation of the evidence, this Court considers it appropriate to fix 15% contributory negligence on the deceased rider and 85% negligence on the driver of the Transport Corporation bus.

8.6. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to negligence is modified. The appellant/Transport Corporation shall be liable to satisfy 85% of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, while the remaining 15% shall be deducted towards the contributory negligence of the deceased.

8.7. In arriving at the above conclusion, this Court has also kept in view the decisions of the number of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dealing with the consequence of non-wearing of a helmet in a case involving head injuries, particularly where the FIR was registered against the deceased.

9. Conclusion:

9.1. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is re-determined as follows:- Sl. No Heads Award in Rs.Amount awarded by the Tribunal Re-quantified amount by this Court Status

Loss of Income 12,85,200/- 12,85,200/- Confirmed

Loss of Amenities 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed

Loss of Love and Affection 40,000/- 40,000/- Confirmed

Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed Total Rs.13,55,200/- Rs.13,55,200/- Confirmed 15% deducted towards the contributory negligence ----------- Rs.2,03,280/- ---------- Total Entitlement of the claimant ----------- Rs.11,51,920/- Reduced

10. Result:

10.1. Accordingly, the C.M.A.(MD). No.864 of 2022 is partly allowed.

10.2. The award in M.C.O.P. No. 644 of 2018 dated 06.01.2022 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District and Special Court,

Pudukkottai is hereby modified and the compensation is reduced from Rs.13,55,200/- to Rs.11,51,920/-, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

10.3. The appellant/Transport Corporation shall deposit the award amount, together with accrued interest and costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting 15% towards the contributory negligence of the deceased, if not already deposited.

10.4. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares from the deposited amount of Rs.11,51,920/- in accordance with the apportionment made by the Tribunal.

10.5. If any amount in excess of the liability fixed upon the appellant/Transport Corporation has already been deposited, the appellant/Transport Corporation is permitted to withdraw the excess amount, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 02.11.2026 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No AKM

To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District and Special Court, Pudukkottai

2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J. AKM C.M.A.(MD).No.864 of 2022 Dated: 02.11.2026