Claimant’s sole negligence does not bar compensation under Section 140’s no-fault liability.

The claimant alleged that, on 15 April 2019, his motorcycle struck a lorry parked on the Namakkal–Salem road, causing multiple injuries.

The Tribunal dismissed his claim after finding that he alone was negligent.

He appealed, contending that the lorry had been parked improperly and that the Tribunal had failed to give due weight to an eyewitness’s evidence and his disability.

The insurer maintained that the claimant caused the accident by negligently colliding with the lorry and relied on the police final report, the rough sketch, and the vehicle inspection reports.

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in finding that the claimant alone caused the accident and dismissing his claim for compensation.

2. Whether, despite that finding, the claimant was entitled to compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the principle of no-fault liability.

Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as applied by the Court, provides for compensation on a no-fault basis where death or permanent disablement results from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle; the Court stated that the fixed amount for permanent disablement was ₹25,000.

The Court also considered Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, which requires a driver following another vehicle to maintain sufficient distance to avoid collision, including if the vehicle ahead slows or stops.

The insurer cited Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in 2026 (2) TNMAC 386 (SC), in support of its arguments concerning following distance.

The Court upheld the finding that the claimant alone was negligent. It relied on the rough sketch placing the lorry a few feet from the road, the police final report against the claimant, and the inspection reports showing extensive front-end damage to the motorcycle but no damage to the lorry.

It also noted that the claimant had not produced his driving licence.

However, the Court found that the claimant had sustained 27% disability, established by the disability certificate, and held that he was entitled to the fixed compensation under Section 140 irrespective of the finding on fault.

Nevertheless, the insurer was directed to deposit ₹25,000 in the claimant’s favour under Section 140 within four weeks, to the credit of the claim petition; the claimant was permitted to withdraw the amount upon application.

There was no order as to costs.