The court affirmed the principle of contributory negligence and the computation of compensation based on notional income, emphasizing the lack of documentary evidence for the deceased's income.

JUDGMENT

ABHAY AHUJA, J. - This is an appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dtd. 2/3/2016, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadchiroli, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 81 of 2014, by which the appellant/Insurance Company and the respondent no. 4/owner of the car were directed to jointly and severally pay an amount Rs.5, 00, 961.00 (Rupees Five Lacs Nine Hundred Sixty One Only) inclusive of no fault liability of Rs.50, 000.00 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till realization of amount.

2. The brief facts are that the appellant/Insurance Company had for the period 15/5/2014 to 14/5/2015 insured a Santro Car (for short, the "said car") bearing Registration No. MH-33-A-952 owned by respondent no. 4 under a Private Car Package Policy. On 24/10/2014, the said car driven by the respondent no. 4/owner of the car met with an accident with a motorcycle bearing Registration No. MH-33-B-6493 on Gadchiroli Aarmori Road. There was a head on collision between the two vehicles. The motorcycle was driven by the deceased Ramji Bhoyar, who after the collision sustained grievous injuries to his head and other parts of the body was taken to a general hospital, at Gadchiroli, where he succumbed to his injuries and died. The respondents no. 1 to 3 in this appeal claiming to be the legal heirs of the deceased Ramji Bhoyar, filed Claim Petition No. 81 of 2014 on 21/11/2014 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadchiroli, claiming a compensation under Sec. 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, of Rs.6, 00, 000.00 from the respondent no. 4/owner of the car and the Insurance Company, who is the appellant herein. Alongwith the claim petition an application under Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act of 1988") for claiming an amount of Rs.50, 000.00 towards no fault liability was also filed.

3. On 22/1/2015, the respondent no. 4/owner of the said car filed his reply to the claim petition under Sec. 166 (1) as well as to the application under Sec. 140 of the Act of 1988. A specific plea was taken by the respondent no. 4/owner of the said car that the deceased Ramji Bhoyar was riding the motorcycle alongwith two other pillion riders and all of a sudden took a turn without giving any indication and due to the loss of balance, he gave a dash to the right side of the said car. The contention of the respondent no. 4 was that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased Ramji Bhoyar. The appellant/Insurance Company also filed its written statement opposing the claim petition. On 2/3/2016, after considering the evidence recorded, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadchiroli, allowed the claim petition and by the impugned judgment and award granted compensation of Rs.5, 00, 961.00 inclusive of no fault liability of Rs.50, 000.00 alongwith interest, jointly and severally to be paid by the appellant/Insurance Company and respondent no. 4/owner of the said car.

4. Shri. Harish V. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the respondents no. 1 to 3 have filed execution proceedings, which have been stayed by this Court, till the final disposal of the appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would firstly submit that there is no negligence that has been proved on the part of the owner of the said car. He draws the attention of this Court to paragraph 12 of the impugned decision and submits that there is a clear finding that the driver of the motorcycle was driving the motorcycle with two other persons on the motorcycle. He submits that it is obvious that therefore the driver of the motorcycle could have lost his balance and control. Also, there is no eye witness account to establish that the motorcycle was hit by the said Santro Car. He would submit that the entire incident took place in the middle of the road and the said car cannot be held solely responsible for the accident. T