IMPORTANT POINT
The need for evidence to support claims of contributory negligence and the consideration of factors such as employment and number of claimants in determining compensation.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 04.03.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur, District-Jashpur, Chhattisgarh in Motor Accident Claim No.31/2014 (“Kuldeep Ekka & Others vs. Kailash Yadav & Others”).

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.05.2014, 24-year-old Raili Ekka along with his friend was going to Charaidand on a motorcycle at that time respondent No. 8 Baleshwar Ram Yadav was driving a pick-up bearing registration No. JH-07-C-8696 (offending vehicle) in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of Raili Ekka due to which he sustained grievous injuries and died. His legal heirs, who are respondents No. 1 to 6, filed a claim application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the driver (Baleshwar Ram Yadav) of the offending vehicle, registered owner/respondent No. 7 (Kailash Yadav) and the appellant (insurance company) on which after due proceedings, the Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 45,92,880/- in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased. The appellant was found to be the insurer of the offending vehicle and was held liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount.

3. The appellant/insurance company has filed this appeal challenging the award passed against it. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned award is on the higher side which needs to be reduced suitably. He further submits that the tribunal has erred in awarding an amount of Rs. 2,75,000/- on the other conventional heads whereas as per the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, it should not be more than Rs. 70,000/-. He also submits that it is clear from the cross-examination of the eye witness Sunil Panna (AW-2) that at the time of the accident, the deceased was driving the motorcycle in a breach of policy conditions as the deceased was driving the motorcycle in which two persons namely Sanju Ekka and Sunil Panna were also sitting on the back of the driver of the motorcycle whereas a motorcycle has only two (including driver) sitting capacity. He also submits that it is clear from the postmortem report (Ex.A-2) of the deceased that at the time of the accident, the deceased was in a drunken condition, therefore, he had driven the motorcycle negligently under the influence of of alcohol, due to which the said accident occurred. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and set aside the excessive quantum of the award and apply the principle of contributory negligence.

4. Learned counsel for respondents supported the impugned award and opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned.

6. So far as the quantum of the award is concerned, it is evident that at the time of the accident, the deceased was unmarried, aged about 24 years was a Government employee under the Indian Army and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 26,653/-. There are a total number of claimants are 6 who are the parents and siblings of the deceased and as per the matter of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189 on the head of love and affection Rs. 40,000/- for each claimant should be awarded which comes to Rs. 2,40,000/- and on the head of loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- & also on the head of funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- should be awarded. Thus, the total compensation on conventional heads comes to Rs. 2,70,000/-, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant to the point that the Tribunal has awarded a higher amount of Rs. 2,75,000/- on other conventional heads, does not appear to be on the higher side.

7. So far as the plea of counsel for the appellant on the point of contributory negligence is concerned, from the perusal of the record, it would reveal that except for the pleading