The main legal point established is the determination of liability in a motor vehicle accident and the application of legal precedents to determine the appropriate interest rate for compensation.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

1. These appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 impugn the common Award dated 17.11.2016 passed in DAR No. D-200/14 awarding compensation of Rs. 2,92,464/- and Rs. 5,17,450/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to respondent No. 1 respectively in each appeal for the injuries suffered on account of the motor vehicle accident. The vehicle was insured with the appellant. Accordingly, the liability has been fixed on it. The appellant contends that there is a contributory negligence on behalf of the respondents, since the cycle-rickshaw in which the respondents were travelling was being driven on the wrong side of the road, therefore, to some extent, the awarded amount should be reduced.

2. The Tribunal has dealt with this contention as follows:-

“11. During cross-examination by R-1, PW-1 and 2 stated that rickshaw was on the wrong side of the road/flyover. It is correct that they were going in lane meant for vehicles coming from the front side where vehicles from other side is not ail owed. His statement was recorded in the hospital. The rickshaw puller also sustained injuries in the accident. The suggestion is denied that accident has taken place due to their negligence as rickshaw was on the wrong side.

12. During cross-examination by R-2, the suggestion is denied by PW-1 and 2 that they have compelled the rickshaw puller to go on the wrong side or accident has taken place due to their negligence.

13. I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The testimony of PW-1 and 2 is material in nature as they are the victims. It is clear from the evidence on record that PW-1 and 2 were going on a cycle rickshaw and reached at 5.00 p.m. at Flyover, Anand Vihar, Delhi. One Xylo Car bearing no. UP-14CT-1700 being driven by respondent no. 1 came in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner hit against cycle rickshaw as a result both of them fell down and sustained injuries. The respondent no. 1 stopped his vehicle after the accident. They were removed to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital by PCR Van. The accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent (sic) of respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 1 has taken the defence that no accident has taken place with his vehicle. The defence does not inspire confidence. No question or suggestion is put to PW-1 and 2 that respondent no. 1 has not hit his car against their cycle rickshaw or he was not driving the car in a rash and negligent manner. Their testimony on material aspects of the case has gone un-rebutted. Respondent no. 1 has not put his defence to PW-1 and 2 for the reasons best known to him. The mechanical inspection report shows that front portion of the car has been damaged which corroborates the version of PW-1 and 2 that car hit the cycle rickshaw from the front side. FIR has been registered against respondent no. 1. He has not made any complaint against the IO to his Sr. Officials in case he has not caused any accident. All these facts show that his defence is without any merits. Respondents have failed to shatter PW-1 and 2 during the course of their cross-examination.

14. The testimony of PW-1 and 2 shows that cycle rickshaw was on the wrong side. The rickshaw puller might be at fault but that is no ground to conclude that there was any contributory negligence on the part of PW-1 and 2.”

3. In view of the clear reasons and sound conclusion arrived at, the Court finds no reason to interfere with it.

4. It is not in dispute that the rickshaw was not being pulled by the injured passengers but by the rickshaw puller. They may have protested it being taken on the wrong side of the road but the passenger could not have jumped off the rickshaw to stop it while it was still moving. The latter course would be daring, adventurous and fraught with serious threat of corporal injury. The accident had happened at about 5.00 pm on 9th March, 2014. On that date, sunset in Delhi happened at 6.20 p.m. therefore, at 5.00 p.m. there would h