JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree made in MCOP No. 476 of 2021, dated 16.11.2022, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court No.2, Salem.) D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the the Insurance Company against the order dated 16.11.2022 in M.C.O.P.No. 476 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court No.2, Salem, in which, total compensation of a sum of Rs.24,24,448/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% and costs was awarded by the Tribunal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that firstly this is a case where the injured was travelling in a two wheeler and even though the auto is said to have stopped abruptly, still he did not exercise diligence and care, but he was travelling in a high speed and contributed to the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have seen that there is contributory negligence on the part of the 1st respondent/claimant and ought to have apportioned the liability. In this case, even the insurer of the two wheeler has not been impleaded and the entire liability ought not to have been fastened on the appellant. 3. Secondly, learned counsel would submit that even though the Medical Board has assessed disability of 65%, it can still be seen on record that the claimant could continue his avocation. Therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have taken 65% as such while determining compensation under the head ''Functional Disability''. 4. In support of her submission, learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Nishan Singh and others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through Regional Manager and others reported in (2018) 6 SCC 765 , more specifically paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 and contented that when the vehicles are travelling on the highway, the vehicles travelling from behind also have a duty to avert collision when the vehicle which is travelling in the front, suddenly stops. 5. 11 and 12 and contented that when the vehicles are travelling on the highway, the vehicles travelling from behind also have a duty to avert collision when the vehicle which is travelling in the front, suddenly stops. 5. Learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court to Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, which specifies that, “the driver of a motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle to avert collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop.” 6. Learned counsel also pointed out to the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report and submitted that, there was no sufficient distance between the auto and the two wheeler and the claimant was also travelling in a high speed, thereby, the said accident occurred. Therefore, she requests for interference by this Court. 7. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. 8. We are unable to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 9. Firstly, with regard to the contributory negligence, it can be seen that, in this case, the auto which was travelling before the claimant’s two wheeler stopped abruptly, which was only the sole and proximate cause for the accident. In this regard, the Honourable Supreme Court of India, in the case of Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri vs. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak and others reported in (2002) 6 SCC 455 has clearly laid down the meaning of contributory negligence and it is useful to quote para 8 of the said judgment. “8.We do not think that these two reasons given by the High Court fully justify the accepted principles of contributory negligence. The question of contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the claimant''s part, which has materially contributed to the damage caused, and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as ''negligence.'' Negligence ordinarily means breach of a legal duty to care, but when used in the expression "contributory negligence" it does not mean breach of any duty. It only means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an "author of his own wrong." 10. It only means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an "author of his own wrong." 10. Again in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Laxman Iyer and another reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731 , useful reference may be drawn to paragraph Nos. 6 to 8, in which, the meaning of the word “Negligence” is delineated. Therefore, only when any act of the claimant contributes as a proximate cause for the accident or without reasonable care, then only, it can be termed as contributory negligence. 11. The contention that the claimant could have rode the motor vehicle bit slower or could have taken extra care to apply the brakes, cannot be a ground to conclude that there was failure to take reasonable care amounting to contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Therefore, we reject the said contention. 12. The second contention with regard to the quantum is concerned, it can be seen that the case of the claimant has been referred to the Board and the Experts have assessed and opined that there is a disability of 65%. The learned counsel relied upon the answer given during the examination of the witnesses that it is possible for the claimant to continue with his Manager Post, but as per the Ex.P4-Discharge Summary, it is mentioned that there will be a pain in the hip and difficulty in using left hip and knee. It is pertinent to note that if only the claimant bears the pain, it would be possible for the claimant to perform the duties. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is without any merits. 13. Accordingly, we do not find any grounds to interfere in the award passed by the Tribunal. 14. In the result: i. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed; ii. The sum of Rs.24,24,448/- together with interest and costs, awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the 1st respondent/claimant is confirmed; iii. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest and costs, less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.168 of 2013; iv. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest and costs, less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.168 of 2013; iv. On such deposit, the 1st respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount along with interest and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filling necessary applications before the Tribunal. v. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.