( 1 ) THE appellant is the mother of the deceased and she has preferred this appeal under section 173 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the act') calling in question the correctness and legality of the judgment and award dated 13. 12. 2000 in M. V. C. No. 3064 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal and Additional Judge, court of Small Causes, Bangalore City (SCCH-5), for short 'the M. A. C. T'.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows: On 24. 6. 1993 the deceased Naseer khan by name, was driving lorry bearing registration No. CAA 6286 along with yosuffa Pasha, the cleaner, on Bangalore-Pune National Highway. At about 11. 30 p. m. , when the said vehicle was moving 9 km. away from Ranebennur, lorry bearing the registration No. MH 17-6731 came from the opposite direction in a most rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry driven by the deceased and as a result Naseer Khan sustained grievous injuries and ultimately succumbed to those injuries on 25. 6. 1993. Appellant-claimant claiming that the deceased was earning monthly salary of Rs. 3,000 and was aged 24 years, claimed total compensation of rs. 30,00,000 on various heads.

( 3 ) ALTHOUGH the respondents, namely, the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident and the insurance company though served with notice, did not choose to contest the claim petition by filing any counter-statement, though the insurance company had put in appearance through its counsel.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings, the m. A. C. T. framed the following points for decision-making:" (1) Whether the petitioner proves that due to actionable negligence of driver of lorry bearing No. MH 17-6731 by its driver, her son Naseer Khan died in an accident? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom? (3) What order?"

( 5 ) ON behalf of the appellant-claimant, she examined herself as PW 1 and examined the cleaner of the vehicle driven by the deceased as PW 2 and got marked 10 documents as Exhs. P-1 to P-10. On behalf of the respondents, none was examined nor any document was produced.

( 6 ) THE M. A. C. T. on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both the vehicles. The M. A. C. T. so opining, apportioned the blame equally between the two drivers.

( 7 ) THE M. A. C. T. assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000 and deducting 50 per cent of that income towards personal expenses of the deceased, determined loss of monthly dependency at Rs. 1,500 and applied multiplier of 17 and thus determined total loss of dependency in a sum of Rs. 3,06,000. To this, the m. A. C. T. added Rs. 15,000 towards loss of expectancy, Rs. 5,000 towards cost of transportation of the body of the deceased from Davangere to Bangalore and funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000 towards medical expenses. Deducting 50 per cent of the aggregate towards contributory negligence, the M. A. C. T. has awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,70,500 (Sic. Rs. 1,65,500) with interest at 9 per cent from 5. 10. 1996, that is, the date on which the claim petition was received by the M. A. C. T. from the m. A. C. T. , Ranebennur. Hence, this appeal by the aggrieved claimant calling in question the finding recorded by the M. A. C. T. with regard to actionable negligence as well as quantum of compensation.

( 8 ) WE have heard Mr. Shashidhar S. Karamadi, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company and perused the judgment. The lower court records are also placed before us. We have perused the same. It is contended by Mr. Karamadi that the M. A. C. T. has seriously erred in law in holding that the deceased has also contributed negligence for causing the accident. According to Mr. Karamadi, such finding could not have been recorded by the M. A. C. T. on the face of the evidence of