1. Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the M.V. Act'), the claimants/appellants herein have challenged the award dated 27/03/2012, passed by 4th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (in short 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 184/2011, by which, the Claims Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act and awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,22,320 along with interest @ 6% per annum to the claimants.

2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are as under:

2.1 The claimants/appellants, being the parents and sister of deceased Devendra Kumar Sahu, filed an application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act stating inter alia that on 08/03/2011, respondent No. 1- Chamanlal Dewangan (driver), while driving a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-07-LU-1604, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3; rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of deceased bearing registration No. CG-07-LL-6140, as a result of which, the deceased suffered injury and died.

2.2 It was further pleaded that pursuant to the report lodged by the claimants an offence under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of the IPC was registered against respondent No.1 and charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara, Durg which is pending consideration. The claimants made a claim for a sum of Rs.48,14,089 from the respondents jointly and severally.

2.3 Respondents No. 1 & 2 (driver & owner) filed a joint statement and simply denied the facts pleaded in the application for compensation and alternatively pleaded that if it is found that the death occurred due to rash and negligent act of respondent No. 1/driver then respondent No.3 be held liable to make payment of compensation as offending vehicle was insured with it.

2.4 Respondent No.3 filed a separate written statement before the Claims Tribunal pleading that respondent No.1 as well as the deceased both were negligent in driving their vehicles. Three persons were sitting on the motorcycle of the deceased, which is in violation of Section 128 of the M.V. Act. Thus, respondent No.3 disclaimed its liability.

2.5 Learned Claims Tribunal, after close scrutiny of the evidence on record, held that :

• Death of Devendra Kumar Sahu was caused due to rash and negligent act of respondent No.1, while driving the offending motorcycle No. CG-07-LU-1604 rashly and negligently.

• Two other persons, namely Mukesh Kumar and Ganesh Ram Sahu were sitting on the motorcycle being driven by Devendra Kumar Sahu therefore, deceased Devendra Kumar Sahu was also negligent in driving the vehicle to the extent of 50%.

• Total compensation was assessed to Rs.6,44,640 along with 6% interest, but deducted 50% amount as deceased Devendra Kumar Sahu was himself liable for contributory negligece.

Submissions of Counsel

3. Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has fallen into error by holding that the deceased was contributory negligent in driving the vehicle to the extent of 50%. He would further submit that though, the Insurance Company has raised a vague plea that the deceased himself was contributory negligent but it failed to lead any evidence in support of plea of contributory negligence. He would further submit that merely because three persons were allegedly sitting on the offending motorcycle in alleged violation of Section 128 of the M.V. Act, no presumption of contributory negligence against deceased Devendra Kumar Sahu can be drawn. He would further submit that after investigation, Police filed a Challan (Ex. P-1) against respondent No.1 only for the offence under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of the I.P.C., which is pending consideration before the jurisdictional Criminal Court. He finally submits that the finding of the Claims Tribunal with respect to the contributory negligence is li