The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper attribution of contributory negligence and the computation of just and reasonable compensation.

JUDGMENT

Anuja Prabhudessai, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 3 rd April, 2018 in MACP No. 44 of 2010. By the impugned judgment and award the Claims Tribunal, partly allowed the Application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, filed by the aforesaid Appellants and awarded compensation of Rs.11,91,082/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual payment.

2. The Appellant Nos. 1 , 2 and 3, were the Claimants in Claim Petition No. 44 of 2010, shall be hereinafter referred to as the "Claimants". The Claimant No.1 is the widow, Claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the children and Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased Ravindra Bhande, who expired in a motor vehicular accident.

3. It is the case of the Claimants that on 18th February, 2010, while Ravindra Bhande was proceeding from Karangi to Dharne, his motorcycle collided with a truck bearing No.MH-34-A-5923, which was parked on the road near Guru Nanak Dhaba, Pulpod, without parking or hazard lights. The Claimants asserted that the accident was caused solely due to the careless and negligent act of the driver of the truck.

4. The Claimants stated that the deceased was 35 years of age and was working as Live Stock Supervisor at Panchayat Samiti, Kelapur and was drawing salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. He was the sole earning member of the family. The Claimants therefore filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle claiming total compensation of Rs.90,28,000/- towards loss of dependency and other heads.

5. The driver of the offending vehicle did not contest the proceeding despite due service. The Owner and the Insurer denied that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the truck. They claimed that had the deceased driven the motorcycle carefully and cautiously, he would have been able to avoid the accident. They therefore raised a plea of contributory negligence. Upon considering the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the Claimants and the Respondents, the Tribunal held that the driver of the truck was negligent in parking the truck in the middle of the highway. The Tribunal further held that the driver of the motorcycle was at a fast speed, and that either the headlight of the motorcycle was not in working condition, or that he had not seen the truck parked on the road. The Tribunal therefore held that the deceased was also responsible for the accident and therefore concluded that it was a case of contributory negligence.

6. As regards quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considered the annual income of the deceased as Rs.1,63,116/- and deducted 10% towards income tax, 25% towards personal expenses of the deceased, and upon adding 40% towards future prospects and applying multiplier of 14 computed loss of dependency at Rs.23,12,163/-. The Tribunal also awarded compensation of Rs.70,000/- on other conventional heads viz. loss of spousal consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate. Accordingly, the Tribunal assessed total compensation at Rs.28,82,163/-. Upon deducting 50% towards contributory negligence, the Tribunal directed payment of compensation of Rs.11,91,082/-. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award, the Claimants have preferred this Appeal.

7. Shri Vivek Awachat, learned Counsel for the Claimants submits that the Tribunal has grossly erred in attributing contributory negligence to the deceased. He submits that the evidence on record amply proves that the accident was caused due to parking of the offending vehicle in the middle of the road during night time. He therefore contends that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of contributory negligence is not based on evidence on record.

8. Learned Counsel for the Claimants further submits that the Tribu