The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between contributory and composite negligence and the application of this distinction in determining compensation in motor accident cases.

JUDGMENT

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 21.08.2006 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track No.4) M.A.C.T. Cases, Jodhpur in MAC Case No.218/2005 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,21,500/- as compensation to the appellants with an interest @ 7.5% p.a. on account of death of Rajendra Singh @ Raju Singh who died in the accident which occurred on 07.08.2004.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 07.08.2004, Rajendra Singh @ Raju Singh and Devi Singh while going to Osian from Jodhpur on a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Registration No.RJ-07-5M0339 met with an accident caused by a Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-19-lC-4508. Rajendra Singh @ Raju Singh was a pillion rider. In the accident, he died and in the circumstances, a claim petition was preferred. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record, hearing learned counsel for the parties allowed the claim petition of the appellants vide its judgment and award dated 21.08.2006 and awarded a sum of Rs.2,21,500/- as compensation to the appellants.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal on issue No.1 is erroneous on account of the fact that deceased Rajendra Singh @ Raju Singh was a pillion rider on the motorcycle and the motorcycle was being driven by Devi Singh, therefore, the compensation awarded could not have been reduced by 50%. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khenyei V/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2015) 9 Supreme Court Cases 273. He further submits that the award has not been computed correctly as at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 22 years, therefore, multiplier of 18 is required to be applied while calculating the amount. Further, the amount of compensation is required to be recomputed in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) SC 5157. Since there are four family members who were dependents on deceased Rajendra Singh @ Raju Singh, therefore, deduction was required to be made to the extent of 1/4 instead of 1/3 in the judgment and award passed by the tribunal. In the circumstances, the counsel prays that the amount of compensation in the present case is required to be reassessed and enhanced suitably.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company submits that while calculating the compensation in the present case, learned Tribunal evaluated the evidence brought on record in its correct perspective and awarded a just compensation in the present case. The counsel, however, is not in a position to dispute the fact that the deceased was a pillion rider, therefore, deduction of the amount to the extent of 50% is dehors the law. He is also not in a position to dispute the fact that calculation is to be undertaken as per the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (supra).

6. I have considered the submissions made at the bar.

7. In view of the fact that the motorcycle was being driven by Devi Singh and the deceased Rajendra Singh @ Raju Singh was sitting at the back i.e. he was a pillion rider. The amount in the present case on account of death of pillion rider was not required to be reduced to the extent of 50% on account of contributory negligence as it was a case of composite negligence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khenyei V/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2015) 9 Supreme Court Cases 273 has held as under:-

"15. There is difference between contributory and composite negligence. In the case of contributory negligence, a person who has himself contributed to the accident cannot claim compensation for the