The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of contributory negligence in motor vehicle accident cases and the computation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

H. Baruah, J.

1. The MAC Appeal No. 13 of 2010 and Cross Objection No. 3 of 2010 are being disposed of by this common judgment and order in view of involvement of similar facts and law. MAC Appeal No. 13 of 2010 is preferred against the judgment and award dated 23-2-2010 passed by learned Member, MACT, Aizawl in MAC Case No. 68 of 2006 whereby an amount of Rs. 7,57,608/- with 9% interest per annum has been awarded against the Appellant, the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The Cross Objectors on the other hand by filing the cross objection have sought for enhancement of the award in view of the averments made in the cross objection petition.

2. We have heard Mr. M.M. Ali, learned Court for the Appellant, the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. as well as Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Court and Mr. M. Guite, learned Court for the Cross Objectors, namely, Smt. K. Lalsawmi, claimant-Respondent in the appeal, Smt. Nitu Pandya, the owner of the offending vehicle, Smt. Lalremsiami and Lalsiamliana, counter claimant-opposite party No. 3 and 4 in the appeal.

3. The primary grievance of the Appellant is in respect of failure on the part of the tribunal to take account of the contributory negligence and apportionment of the award, while the cross objectors claim is for enhancement of the award. In respect of the other issues the Appellant has not make any submission in other words not taken any ground as against the judgment and award. Mr. M.M. Ali, learned Court appearing for the Appellant submits before this Court that death occurred to the deceased on account of his own negligence in a vehicular accident. It is submitted by him that the deceased at the time of accident was playing Football on the highway with his friends and while playing the offending vehicle hit him and accordingly died due to run over by the rear wheels. Mr. M.M. Ali in support of his contention put reliance in the evidence of P.C. Rohmingthanga, ASI, witness No. 2 for the claimant who was the investigating officer deputed by the Officer-in-charge of Sairang Police Station. This witness in his cross-examination stated that the deceased, the police constable was playing Football on the road with some of his friends on a blind curve of the road. Taking assistance of this particular piece of evidence Mr. M.M. Ali, leaned Court for the Appellant submits strenuously that it would have been appropriate on the part of the Member, MACT to hold that the accident took place on account of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and in that view of the matter it would have been appropriate for the Member not to saddle the Appellant with the cent percent liability of the payment of the award. By playing Football on the road by the deceased with his friends that too in a blind curve of the road contributed some negligence on his part towards the accident. Therefore, according to Mr. M.M. Ali, the award so computed ought to have been apportioned 50 : 50.

4. On the contrary Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Court and Mr. M. Guite, learned Court for the cross objectors-Respondents submit that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased and he had not contributed any thing towards accident. It is also submitted that the deceased was not playing Football on the road with his friends as claimed by witness No. 2. Mrs. Helen and Mr. Guite, learned Court for the cross objectors-Respondents submit that such fact is not appearing in the evidence of witness No. 3, the Investigating Officer of the case and that being so the evidence forthcoming in the cross examination of the witness No. 2 would have no bearing and accordingly the submission advanced by Mr. M.M. Ali would have no leg to stand.

5. Witness No. 2, Mr. P.C. Rohmingthanga, the ASI of Police during the relevant point of time was posted as second officer of Sairang Police Station, while he was at Sairang police station he received a telephonic information of an accident involving a truck that occurred at PTC juncti