JUDGMENT :

The appellants were the petitioners in OP (MV) No.1630/2005 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents in the claim petition.

2. The appellants had filed the claim petition under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of one P.P.Biju (deceased), who is the son of the first appellant and brother of the appellants 2 and 3.

3. The facts in brief, for the determination of the appeal, are: On 14.4.2005 while the deceased was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-11/U 5772, when he reached Kolaikavu in Kozhikode District, a bus bearing registration No.KL-11/U 2349 (offending vehicle) owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent hit the motor cycle causing serious injuries to the deceased. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on 17.4.2005 while he was undergoing treatment. The deceased was a Barber by profession and earning a monthly income of Rs.5,200/-. The respondents 1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount, which the appellants quantified at Rs.6,00,000/-.

4. The first respondent did not contest the proceedings and was set ex-parte.

5. The second respondent filed a written statement admitting the insurance coverage of the offending vehicle. However, it was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased.

6. The appellants marked Exts A1 to A3 in evidence. The respondents did not let in any contra evidence.

7. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned award allowed the claim petition, in part, by directing the second respondent to pay an amount of Rs.1,55,008/-with interest @ 7% per annum from 6.6.2005 till the date of payment. The Tribunal found that the deceased was responsible for contributory negligence to the extent of 5%.

8. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants preferred this appeal.

9. This Court by judgment dated 31.1.2018 allowed the appeal, in part, by enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,55,008/-to Rs.8,60,550/-. However, this Court found that the Tribunal had gone wrong in fixing the contributory negligence on the deceased at 5% instead of 50%. Consequently, this Court by the impugned judgment fixed the contributory negligence at 50% and reduced the compensation by half.

10. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the appellants preferred RP 746/2018. This Court by order dated 19.3.2021, on finding that as per Annexure A2 final report filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, City Traffic, Kozhikode in crime No.597/2005 that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in causing the accident, allowed the review petition as there was an error apparent on the face of record. Accordingly, the judgment was recalled and the appeal was re-heard.

11. The appellants have produced the driving licence of the deceased along with final report filed by the Police with an application to accept the same. The application was allowed and the above documents have been accepted and marked in evidence as Exts A4 and A5, respectively.

12. Heard Sri.Jacob Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Smt.A.Sreekala, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

13. The first question that emanates for consideration in the appeal is whether the deceased can be held guilty for contributory negligence.

14. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680], has held that Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, deals with the concept of 'just compensation' and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standards. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed