1. Heard. Admit. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

2. This is an Appeal by the Insurance Company in MACP No. 105/2011 by judgment dt. 12.12.2014. The ld. Member, MACT, Aurangabad, allowed the claim petition to the tune of Rs. 8,79,000/- with interest of 7.5% and fastened the liability on all the respondents. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company has preferred this Appeal.

3. As per the claim petition, on 26.03.2009 at 05:00 p.m., deceased Pandharinath was proceeding from his office at Garkheda, Tq. Khultabai, for darshan of Lord Bhadra Maruti. He was on his bike and his two friends were going on another bike. When they reached Khultabad T-point, truck bearing No. GJ-25-T-5050 belonging to respondent No. 8 driven by respondent No. 7 rashly and negligently gave dash to the bike from rear side. As a result, Pandharinath sustained multiple injuries and then he was brought to the Civil Hospital (Ghati) at Aurangabad where he was declared dead. Crime was registered at C.R. No. I-444/2009 for offences u/s 279 & 304A of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 134 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The claimants claim that, Pandharinath was aged 32 years and was serving in Radhakrishna Mangal Karyalaya, Aurangabad, on a salary of Rs. 7,000/- p.m. Bhatta of Rs. 1,000/- + Bonus at Diwali. Claimant No. 1 is a widow, claimant No. 2 is father and claimant No. 3 to 6 are minor children of the deceased, who were all dependant upon him. With these pleadings, they claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

4. Orig. respondents No. 1 and 2 denied the factum of accident, involvement of the truck, age and income of the deceased. It is claimed that, respondent no. 1 was having valid driving license and the truck was duly insured with respondent No. 2. They claimed that, the accident did not take place due to negligence of respondent No. 7 – driver. Therefore, if any liability is found, the Insurance Company would be liable. Respondent No. 3 denied various contentions in the petition and claimed that, the driver was not holding valid and effective license. The claimants examined three witnesses. The respondents did not lead any evidence. The ld. trial Judge accepted the case of the claimants on all points except the salary income of deceased at Rs. 8,000/- per month. The income of the deceased was assumed at Rs. 4,000/- per month. Future prospects of Rs. 2,000/- were awarded. 1/4th expenses were deducted towards personal expenses and with nominal compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- under the heads of consortium and funeral, the claim was allowed to the extent of Rs. 8,79,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a.

5. Shri. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company has challenged the manner of accident as stated in the claim petition and in the evidence. He relies on the copy of FIR lodged by a Police Constable present on the spot. He submits that, as per FIR, deceased-Pandharinath was coming from Khultabad side. He drove his bike rashly and negligently and gave dash to the divider and fell on the other side. Thereafter, he came under the wheels of truck moving from its own lane. He further argued that, the socalled eye witness examined by the claimants has not given any statement to the police and he was not cited as a witness. Thus, there was rashness and negligence on the part of the deceased which resulted into accident. In any case, at least, it is a case of contributory negligence. Secondly, he submitted that, the driver of the vehicle was having license to drive the motor vehicle like transport vehicle and not heavy vehicle like truck. Therefore, there was breach of policy by the insurer (R2). Hence, the Insurance Company should not be held liable. Alternatively, he argued that, the compensation awarded should be substantially reduced in view of the contributory negligence of the deceased and the order for pay and recover should be passed.

6. Per contra, le