Contradictory evidence on who drove the motorcycle justified imposing 15% contributory negligence on the claimants.

On 12 February 2016, a two-wheeler carrying Sathish and Ananthan @ Anand collided with a Maruti Omni van insured by Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company.

Each claimant sought compensation for injuries in separate claim petitions; the Tribunal awarded Sathish ₹2,00,000 and Ananthan ₹3,25,000, holding the van driver responsible for the accident.

The insurer appealed, disputing the negligence finding and the quantum of compensation. The evidence conflicted as to whether Sathish or Ananthan was driving the two-wheeler; the Tribunal had found Sathish was driving.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in placing the entire responsibility for the accident on the van driver, and whether contributory negligence should be attributed to the claimants.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation, including the amount awarded for disability, warranted interference or enhancement.

The appeals were brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for appeals from awards of a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

The Court applied the principle of contributory negligence: where a claimant’s own negligence contributes to the accident, responsibility may be apportioned and the recoverable compensation reduced accordingly.

The Court found the evidence about who was driving the two-wheeler inconsistent: Sathish’s testimony conflicted with Ananthan’s, the claimants’ pleaded case, and the material relied on by the Tribunal.

Considering that inconsistency alongside the van driver’s evidence and the rough sketch, the Court concluded that the claimants had also contributed to the accident. It therefore held that assigning all negligence to the van driver was not justified and apportioned 15% contributory negligence to the claimants.

On quantum, it found no basis to enhance the disability compensation, having considered the injuries and discharge certificates.

The insurer was directed to deposit the amounts, with interest and costs and after credit for sums already deposited, within six weeks. The claimants were permitted to withdraw the amounts in accordance with the order.

By a later correction order, the Tribunal was correctly identified as the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri, replacing “Sub Court, Harur” in the original direction.