JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 21.11.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1037 of 2015 on the file of the learned Special Subordinate Judge [Motor Accident Claims Tribunal] of Thiruchirapalli by allowing this appeal.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the insurance company against the Judgment and decree, dated 21.11.2019 in M.C.O.P. No.1037 of 2015 passed by the learned Special Subordinate Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruchirapalli. 2. It is a case of accident, which took place on 15.04.2014, at about 03.30 p.m., Dindigul to Trichy Road, near Ariyavur Primary School, one Praburaj was riding his two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-45-BD-8051 with rash and negligent manner in terrific speed, the claimant and one Sathyanarayanan were riding as pillion riders and dashed against the wall of the Primary School, Ariyavur. Due to the said accident, the rider of the two wheeler died due to head injuries and the claimant sustained injuries. 3. The claimant has filed a petition in M.C.O.P. No.1037 of 2015 on the file of the learned Special Subordinate Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruchirapalli, 4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 & 2 and marked ten documents as Exs.P.1 to P.10 and R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 were marked. The disability certificate was marked as Ex.X.1. 5. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidences and the arguments of the counsel for the claimant and the insurance company and also on appreciating the evidences on record, held that the accident was occurred only, due to the rash and negligent riding of the two wheeler and directed the appellant/insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.15,72,800/-as compensation. 6. The appellant/Insurance company has preferred this present appeal. 7. Heard Mr.V.Sakthivel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.R.Maheswaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the material documents available on record. 8. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to note that at the time of accident three persons were travelled in the two wheeler including the rider of the two wheeler. Perused the material documents available on record. 8. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to note that at the time of accident three persons were travelled in the two wheeler including the rider of the two wheeler. The Tribunal has failed to note that rider and pillion riders of two wheeler shall wear the Protective Head Gear (Helmet) as mandated under Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act travelled in the second respondent/first respondent two wheeler have not wear the protective Head Gear (Helmet) as mandated under Section 129 of the Motor Vehicle Act and responsible for the Accident. 9. The Claimant has filed a petition in M.C.O.P.No.1037 of 2015 for claiming compensation under Sections 163A & 166 of M.V.Act for injuries sustained by him in a road accident took place on 15.04.2014 at 03.30 p.m when he travelled in a two wheeler as pillion rider. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,72,800/-as compensation with 7.5% interest from the date of petition and directed the appellant/insurance company to pay compensation. 10. Aggrieved by this award, the appellant/insurance company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on the ground that at the time of accident there are three persons were travelled in a motor cycle including the claimant. The tribunal has failed to note that there is a violation of policy. Since the rider of the two-wheeler did not wear Helmet, he died due to head injuries. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company relied upon the Judgment reported in 2021 (2) TNMAC 393 in the case of Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Chikekballapura Division, Bengaluru Vs. R.Venkatesan, Ramamani and V.Harish, wherein this Court held as follows: .... “12. From the materials available on record, it is seen that at the time of accident, four persons i.e., the Respondents in C.M.A.Nos.372 & 375 of 2020, the deceased Venu (C.M.A.No.374 of 2020) and one Pachaiyappan, rider have travelled in the Motorcycle, which is Statutory violation. Further, it is the contention of the Appellant that the Rider of the Motorcycle crossed the road and dashed on the front side of the Bus belonging to the Appellant, which was coming in the National Highways. This Court has repeatedly held that the Contributory Negligence has to be fixed on the persons travelling in the Motorcycle more than Statutory limit of two persons. This Court has repeatedly held that the Contributory Negligence has to be fixed on the persons travelling in the Motorcycle more than Statutory limit of two persons. When three or more persons travel in the Motorcycle, the rider of the Motorcycle will not have any control and he is also responsible for the accident. Admittedly, in the present case, four persons have travelled in the Motorcycle at the time of accident as per the averments made in the Claim Petitions and contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. In view of the Statutory violation, Rider of the Motorcycle as well as the Respondents in C.M.A.Nos. 372 & 375 of 2020 and the deceased in C.M.A.No.374 of 2020 also contributed to the negligence for the accident. For the above reason, 30% Contributory Negligence is fixed on the part of the deceased and the injured persons as well as Rider of the Motorcycle. Therefore, portion of the award fixing entire negligence on the part of the Appellant/Transport Corporation is set aside and 70% Contributory Negligence is fixed on the part of the Appellant/Transport Corporation.” 12. In the said accident, no other vehicle was involved. The alleged two-wheeler hit against the wall of the School. The First Information Report was also registered against the driver of the two-wheeler. Further, in evidence, the petitioner/respondent/claimant has admitted that three persons were travelled in the two wheeler. From the above, it clearly shows that violation of policy. 13. The next point is wearing of Helmet by the rider of the two wheeler. The claimant is only a pillion rider and he has sustained head injuries. Due to head injuries, he has permanent disability. It is necessary to wear helmet for the pillion rider also. So, for that, 10% liability on the claimant. 14. The another ground is that the Tribunal ought to have fixed Rs.3,000/-per percentage of disability. But, here the Claimant has not done any work due to disability. So, the tribunal has calculated the loss of income as per multiplier. There is nothing wrong in it. 15. The last ground is for less of marital status the tribunal was erred in fixing compensation as Rs.1 lakh. 16. But as per Doctor's evidence (P.W.2) the Claimant is unable to walk since he sustained brain injuries. So, definitely there is loss of marital status. The age of the petitioner is also 22 years. 17. 15. The last ground is for less of marital status the tribunal was erred in fixing compensation as Rs.1 lakh. 16. But as per Doctor's evidence (P.W.2) the Claimant is unable to walk since he sustained brain injuries. So, definitely there is loss of marital status. The age of the petitioner is also 22 years. 17. This Court is inclined to modify the liability of the insurance company is only 60% (exclude 30% for three persons travelled in the two wheeler and 10% for not wearing Helmet). The violation of policy has also proved by the appellant/insurance company. 18. Finally, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The appellant/insurance company has to pay 60% of the award of compensation passed by the Tribunal, dated 21.11.2019 in M.C.O.P.No.1037 of 2015 passed by the learned Special Subordinate Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruchirapalli. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.