The main legal point established in the judgment is the attribution of contributory negligence and the modification of the compensation awarded based on the claimant's contributory negligence.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--These cross appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company and Mr.Gaurav Tanwar/claimant challenging the order dated 12.11.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shahdara District, Karkardoom Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in MACT Case no.1410/2016, titled Gaurav Tanwer v. Pappu & Anr..

2. The narration of the accident is that on 07.01.2015 at about 2.30 pm, the claimant alongwith one Dheeraj was going from Sonepat, Haryana to village Sunhera, Bhaghpat, Uttar Pradesh by motorcycle bearing no. UP 17-6626 being driven by him. When they reached near Chauhan Hotel, Village Goripur, Sonepat Road, PS Baghpat, UP, they had a head-on collision with one truck bearing No. HR-45B 3754 (hereinafter referred to as the `Offending Vehicle'). Due to the injury suffered, the claimant was removed to District Combined Hospital, Baghpat, UP, but was referred to the Fortis Hospital, where he remained hospitalized during the period from 07.01.2015 to 19.01.2015. He was thereafter referred to the Atlanta Mediworld Hospital, where he was hospitalised between 19.01.2015 to 28.01.2015, 11.05.2015 to 13.05.2015, and 20.07.2015 to 29.07.2015. He was also hospitalised in the Fortis Hospital between 12.12.2015 to 15.12.2015, and had to undergo multiple surgeries. He suffered 46% permanent disability in his right lower limb.

3. Based on the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal found the claimant to have been guilty of contributory negligence, and directed 50% deduction of the awarded amount under the head of loss of earning on this account.

4. The first challenge of the claimant is to the finding of him being found guilty of contributory negligence quantified at 50%.

5. The learned counsel for the claimant, placing reliance on the site plan of the accident, submits that the site plan shows that the offending vehicle was being driven towards the right side of the road which was without a divider in between. He submits that as the heavy goods vehicle-truck was to be driven on the left side of the road, therefore, in the given facts, the attribution of 50% as contributory negligence of the claimant was completely unjustified, and Award to this extent is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the site plan shows that the accident had taken place in the middle of the road. The claimant also had no reason to drive his motorcycle in the middle of the road. He submits that therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly attributed 50% of the contributory negligence on the claimant.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

8. The site plan referred to by the learned counsels for the parties clearly shows that the accident happened in the middle of the road. It is not the case of the claimant that he had to drive in the middle of the road for some reason or for the presence of any vehicle or other blockade on his left side. The road was without a divider in between and therefore, the claimant also should have been vigilant while driving his motorcycle. The learned Tribunal, placing reliance on the site plan, has observed as under:

"16.2. I have gone through the record. Insurance company has cross examined the PWl on this aspect and put a suggestion to this effect but no further cross examination of witness has been conducted. However, injured has relied upon a certified copy of criminal record pending against the driver of the offending vehicle and the same is containing a site plan to prove the spot of this accident. This site plan has shown the spot of accident at Point X which is in the middle of the road which was not the spot of driving of any of the vehicles. The accident in the middle of the road was definitely a head on collusion between both the vehicles and injured, who was driving his motorcycle, was also responsible for this accident and contributed to this acci