Gautam Chourdiya, J.

This appeal is by the injured claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award 23.11.2012 passed by 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No.142/2011 awarding total compensation of Rs.1,48,510/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization, fastening liability on the non-applicants No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally.

2. As per claim petition, on 13.7.2010 at about 11.30 am claimant Jaber Ali was returning from Raipur by truck. On the way, in order to attend the call of nature, he stopped the truck by the side of the road and was crossing the road. However, seeing one car Indica bearing No. CG 04 H 4279 coming towards the claimant, he stood on the divider, but unfortunately as the car was hit from the back side by truck bearing No. CG 07 C 5277, the car got uncontrolled and hit the claimant, as a result of which he suffered grievous injuries. At the time of accident, the said car was being driven by non-applicant No.4 Motilal, owned by non-applicant No.5 Sujata Suri Sethi and insured with non-applicant No.6-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The truck was being driven by non-applicant No.1 Manohar Kosariya, owned by non-applicant No.2 Ranjit Singh and insured with non-applicant No.3 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.

3. On claim petition being filed by the injured claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by the parties passed an award as mentioned above.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that though he has assailed the award on various grounds mentioned in the appeal, however, he is not pressing all those ground and is confining his argument only to the extent that the Tribunal was not justified in deducting 50% from the total compensation assessed by it towards contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. He submits that as per evidence available on record, it stands proved beyond doubt that on the date of accident the claimant was standing on the divider while crossing the road, he had taken all due care and caution in doing so and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle truck which hit the car going in front of it and in turn, the car hit the claimant. He submits that reliance placed on the decision in Halkibai and another Vs. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another, 2005 1 ACC 53 (MP), by the Tribunal in para-12 of the impugned award is misplaced because in the said case, the deceased while crossing the road did not take proper care whereas in the instant case, the claimant apprehending the danger stood on the divider and had taken all possible care to avoid the accident. Therefore, there was no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and the claimant is entitled for the entire amount of compensation as assessed by the Tribunal.

Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of Kaliram Sahu and others Vs. Chamanlal Dewangan and others, (2014) 1 CgLJ 431, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the burden lies on the insurance company to prove that the claimant was in any manner negligent in causing the accident. However, no such evidence has been adduced by the insurance company in this case.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company supports the impugned award and submits that the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matters has rightly awarded compensation holding the claimant equally responsible for the accident, which needs no interference by this Court.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 has duly assisted the Court and supported the impugned award.

7. No counter appeal has been filed by the respondents as submitted by learned counsel for the parties.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

9. As per FIR (Ex.P/1), the accident occurred du