After Taurus Lorry Turned Across Road, Madras HC Cuts Injured Rider’s Share Of Fault To 40%, Directs Insurer To Deposit ₹87,445

The claimant sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for injuries sustained when his two-wheeler collided with a Taurus lorry that was turning across the road.

The Tribunal found both the claimant and the lorry driver negligent, apportioned negligence equally, and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,45,742, payable after a 50% deduction for contributory negligence.

The claimant appealed, challenging the negligence apportionment and seeking enhancement of compensation.

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides the basis for a claim for compensation arising from a motor accident, while Section 173 provides for an appeal against the Tribunal’s award.

In assessing contributory negligence, the Court considered the respective duties of road users: a driver turning across a road must exercise due care and caution, and a rider must maintain a proper lookout and control of the vehicle.

The eyewitness testified that the lorry driver turned right without signalling, and the Court considered the lorry’s size and the driver’s failure to verify the movement of other vehicles before turning.

Although the claimant was also expected to keep a proper lookout and control his two-wheeler, neither the lorry driver nor another independent witness testified to establish his contribution to the accident. The Court therefore held that the 50% attribution to the claimant was excessive and reallocated negligence to 40% for the claimant and 60% for the lorry driver.

On quantum, it found the Tribunal’s disability assessment and awards under the other heads reasonable and declined further enhancement.

The insurer was directed to deposit 60% of that amount—Rs.87,445, rounded off—together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition to deposit, subject to the stated exclusion and adjustment for sums already deposited. The claimant was permitted to withdraw the modified award in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions; there was no order as to costs.