JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. In both these Appeals, the challenge is to the judgment and award dated 30th January 2019 in Claim Petition No.39/2013, by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji sitting at Ponda, (Tribunal) determined the compensation payable to the Claimants, at ?10,15,000/-, but directed the insurer of the Tata tipper truck bearing registration No.GA-09-U-2738 to pay only 25% of this determined compensation amount. The Tribunal held that this was a case of composite negligence between the driver of the tipper truck and Shanker Rane, rider of the Honda Activa scooter on which the deceased Gokuldas Rane was riding pillion.

3. First Appeal No.67/2019 is instituted by the insurer of the Tata tipper truck urging that even 25% liability should not have been foisted upon the owner/driver/insurer of the Tata tipper truck. On the other hand, first Appeal No.83/2019 is instituted by the Claimants urging that 100% liability should have been imposed upon the owner/driver/insurer of the Tata tipper truck. Besides, both the Appeals have questioned the quantum of compensation. The Appellant-Insurance Company contends that excessive compensation has been determined. However, the Claimants contend that the compensation determined is inadequate and does not represent a just compensation. Hence, the two Appeals.

4. The learned Counsel agree that a common judgment and order can dispose of both these Appeals.

5. Mr Netravalkar, learned Counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, submits that the medical evidence on record establishes that Shanker Rane, the rider of the Honda Activa scooter, was drunk and, therefore, solely responsible for the accident in which Prashant Rane expired. He submits that no negligence could be attributed to the Tata tipper truck driver; thus, the owner/driver/insurer of the Tata tipper truck should have been absolved of the liability of paying any compensation.

6. Mr Netravalkar submits that there is no adequate proof of Prashant's income. The employer's testimony is false, particularly because this witness produced no income tax returns or contemporary documents. He submits that if the employer's evidence is to be accepted, Prashant must have been employed when he was a minor, i.e. 17 years of age. He submits that the employer deposed that he was never employing any minors. Mr Netravalkar submits that such contradictory evidence should not have been relied upon by the Tribunal.

7. Mr Netravalkar submitted that the Tribunal erred in deducting only 1/3rd amount when the evidence clearly showed that the deceased was a bachelor. Therefore, towards personal expenses, the deductions should have been 50%, not just 1/3rd, as held by the Tribunal.

8. Mr Netravalkar relied upon the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989; B.S. Chandrappa (since deceased) by widow Anusuya and ors. vs. Shobha and ors. 2003 ACJ 1770; and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kashinath and ors. 2013 ACJ 1856 in support of his contentions.

9. Mr Marshal, the learned Counsel for the Claimants, countered Mr Netravalkar's submissions. He pointed out that the evidence on record was sufficient to conclude that the Tata tipper truck driver was solely responsible for the accident in which Prashant died. He pointed out that the investigating authorities had filed an F.I.R. and even Charge-sheet against the Tata tipper truck driver. Besides, he pointed out that the Tata tipper truck driver was never examined in this matter; therefore, an adverse inference was liable to be drawn against him. He submits that if the Tribunal followed the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in evaluating evidence in such matters, it would be evident that 100% liability was that of the owner/driver/ insurer of the Tata tipper truck.

10. Mr Marshall relied on Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi vs. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and anr. (2015) 2 SCC 180 and Kumari Kiran thr. her father Harinarayan vs. Sajjan Singh and ors. (2015) 1 SCC 539 in suppo