The court clarified contribution to negligence in motor vehicle accidents, reaffirming that the driver’s responsibility can overshadow the cyclist’s negligence, impacting compensation amounts.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-original opponent No. 3 against the respondent Nos. 1 to 6-original claimants and respondent Nos. 7 & 8-original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (‘The Act’ for short) and Cross objections have been filed by the original claimants against the original opponents against the judgment and award passed by learned M.A.C. Tribunal (Aux) Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 154 of 2008 on 7th August, 2014. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the claimants and the opponents in their rank as they stood in the original petition for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

2.1 That on 3rd November, 2007 at about 09:30 hours, Dharmendrasinh Shiromanisinh Bhadoriya was going on his bicycle towards his place of work and while he was passing near Gyaspur on Narol Sarkhej Road, the opponent No. 1 came driving Tractor bearing No. GJ-9-AF-1685, which belonged to the opponent No. 2 and was insured with the opponent No. 3, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the tractor at the rear side of the bicycle of Dharmendrasinh Shiromanisinh Bhadoriya, as a result of which, he fell down and sustained serious injuries and was taken to LG Hospital, Ahmedabad for treatment and he succumbed to his injuries during treatment. The offence was registered at Vatwa Police Station being I-C.R. No. 545 of 2007.

2.2 The claimants, who are the widow, minor children and parents of deceased Dharmendrasinh Shiromanisinh Bhadoriya have filed the claim petition mainly stating that the deceased was 28 years on the date of the accident and was hale and hearty and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by working as a Garment Operator in R.V. Denim Export Limited. The claimants have lost their sole bread-earner and have claimed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation jointly and severally from all the opponents under all available heads.

3. The notices were duly served to the opponents but the opponent Nos. 1 & 2 did not remain present whereas the opponent No. 3 Insurance Company appeared and filed the written statement at Exh.13 mainly denying all the allegations and the averments made in the claim petition and urged the learned Tribunal to dismiss the claim petition.

4. Learned Tribunal, after recording the evidence of all parties on record, found the opponent No. 1-driver of the Tractor, who dashed the cycle from behind, 80% negligent and the deceased 20% negligent for the occurrence of the accident and considering the notional income of the deceased at Rs.2500/- per month, as no cogent convincing evidence was produced, awarded an amount of Rs.14,12,500/- and deducted contributory negligence of 20% and in all awarded an amount of Rs.11,30,000/- with 9% interest jointly and severally from all the opponents to be paid from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and award, the appellant- Insurance Company has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the learned Tribunal has considered the future prospective income at 50% whereas 30% ought to have been considered and the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- under the conventional heads and hence the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal must be modified accordingly.

6. The claimants in the cross objections have mainly stated that the learned Tribunal has wrongly held the deceased 20% negligent for the occurrence of the accident especially when the Tractor driver d