Non-wearing of a helmet is not contributory negligence without a causal nexus to the accident.

On August 31, 2021, the deceased, Pitchamani, was riding his two-wheeler on the Usilampatti–Patelangur Road when he was struck by a bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.

Pitchamani succumbed to his injuries, prompting his dependents to file a claim petition (M.C.O.P. No. 662 of 2022) seeking compensation.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dindigul, held the bus driver primarily responsible but attributed 7% contributory negligence to the deceased for failing to wear a helmet.

The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 28,85,790/-, calculating the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 18,000/-.

The Transport Corporation appealed this award, seeking to increase the percentage of contributory negligence and challenging the income assessment.

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing only 7% contributory negligence on the deceased for non-wearing of a helmet, or if it required enhancement.

2. Whether the fixation of the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 18,000/- was reasonable and legally sustainable.

The Court applied the principles of negligence and quantum assessment under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

It relied on the settled legal position that a mere statutory violation, such as non-wearing of a helmet, does not automatically constitute contributory negligence unless a causal nexus exists between the violation and the accident's occurrence.

For the assessment of income, the Court followed the precedents set in Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014) 2 SCC 735 and Andal v. Avinav Kannan 2019 (1) TNMAC 54 (DB), which advocate for the adoption of a reasonable notional income based on the nature of the avocation and prevailing economic conditions in the absence of strict documentary evidence.

The Court first confirmed the bus driver's negligence, noting that the FIR and departmental proceedings supported the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2.

Addressing contributory negligence, the Court reasoned that the primary purpose of a helmet is to minimize the severity of head injuries (safety measure) rather than to prevent the accident itself (causative factor).

It held that unless it is established that the violation had a direct connection to the impact or the cause of the accident, a heavy deduction for contributory negligence is unwarranted.

Finding no evidence of negligent riding by the deceased, the Court upheld the 7% deduction as a balanced view.

Regarding the quantum, the Court found the fixation of Rs. 18,000/- per month justified by the testimony of P.W.3, which established the deceased’s wood contract business, and by judicial precedents regarding notional income for self-employed individuals.

The High Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and confirmed the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 28,85,790/-; no costs were ordered.