JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the award and decree dated 08.07.2022 made in MCOP.No.6331 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court No.1/Court of Small Causes), Chennai.) 1. This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2022 in MCOP.No.6331 of 2017. 2. The learned counsel for the claimant would submit that on 15.09.2017, while one Sathishkumar was travelling as pillion rider in motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-12-P-4951 at Anna Salai, the rider of the said two-wheeler rode the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the barricade and fell down, due to which he was died on the spot. Considering all the aspects, the Tribunal had awarded the compensation in the following manner: S. No. Heads Compensation (Rs.) 1 Loss of Dependency 15,87,600 2 Loss of Consortium 80,000 3 Loss of Estate 15,000 4 Funeral Expenses 15,000 Total 16,97,600 Rounded off 16,98,000 3. He would submit that at the time of accident, the rider of the two wheeler had consumed alchohal and based on the FIR, the Tribunal had accepted the contention that there is a consumption of alchohal. Further, he would submit that though the pillion riders were well aware of the fact that the rider of the two-wheeler had consumed alchohal, they had risked their own life and travelled in the two-wheeler of the rider and hence, it is a wilful negligence on the part of the deceased pillion rider. Thus, he requested this Court to fasten any reasonable negligence and liability against the deceased pillion rider. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant would submit that it is an admitted fact that at the time of accident, the rider had rode the two wheeler with two pillion riders and the same is against the provisions of law. Further, it is also an admitted fact that at the time of accident, the rider had consumed alchohal. Hence, he would requests this Court to fix any reasonable percentage of negligence, which is not more than 20%, against the claimant. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents and also perused the documents available on records. 6. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of accident. Hence, he would requests this Court to fix any reasonable percentage of negligence, which is not more than 20%, against the claimant. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents and also perused the documents available on records. 6. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of accident. The only dispute is with regard to the fixation of contributory negligence and fastening of liability against the deceased pillion rider. It is an admitted fact that the two-wheeler of the rider was insured with the appellant. The only aspect that has to be decided is as to whether two pillion riders can travel with a rider when they are well aware of the fact that the rider had consumed alcohol. 7. The answer would be both the pillion riders are not supposed to travel along with the rider in the two-wheeler, since the two-wheeler is legally not permitted for 3 persons and the same is against the provision of law, for which a fine amount can be imposed and no contributory negligence can be fastened against the rider on this aspect. However, in the present case, the deceased pillion rider was well aware of the fact that the rider had consumed alchohal and he had risked his own life by traveling in the rider's two-wheeler and hence, there is a willful negligence on the part of the deceased pillion rider. 8. In view of the above, a reasonable percentage of contributory negligence has to be fastened against the deceased pillion rider, since he had willfully invited the accident. However, the Tribunal had failed to consider the said aspect and fastened the entire liability against the rider of the two-wheeler. Hence, this Court is inclined to re-determine the contributory negligence fixed by the Tribunal and accordingly, this Court is inclined to fix 30% negligence against the deceased pillion rider and 70% against the rider of the two-wheeler. In such case, the Insurance Company is only liable to pay 70% of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 9. Since the learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that they had already deposited 50% of the award amount, this Court directs the appellant to pay the balance 20% along with interest. With regard to all the other aspects, including pay and recovery, the order passed by the Tribunal stands confirmed. 10. 9. Since the learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that they had already deposited 50% of the award amount, this Court directs the appellant to pay the balance 20% along with interest. With regard to all the other aspects, including pay and recovery, the order passed by the Tribunal stands confirmed. 10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the appellant is directed to deposit balance 20% of the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of MCOP.No.6331 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court No.1/Court of Small Causes), Chennai. Upon such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the award amount to bank account of the claimants, by way of RTGS, within a period of three weeks from the date of deposit and receipt of the Bank details obtained from the claimants. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.