Point of Law: Age of deceased was 30 years, therefore, a multiplier of 17 will be applied.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 06.09.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaitaran, District Pali (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Tribunal') whereby although an award of Rs.3,06,500/- has been passed in favour of the claimants but holding the contributory negligence of the deceased, 30% of the awarded amount has been directed to be deducted qua the contributory negligence. Therefore, after deduction as aforementioned, a claim of Rs.2,14,500/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants who are the parents, wife and the five minor children of the deceased.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding the contributory negligence of the deceased is totally contrary to the record and therefore, liable to be set aside. He submitted that it was not even the case of the respondent owner or the insurer of the vehicle that the motorcyclist was negligent and the accident occurred due to his contributory negligence. No evidence qua the said fact was led by any of the respondents and therefore, the finding as arrived by the learned Tribunal cannot be upheld. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.[2018 ACJ 1300] and The New India Assurance Company Limited and Ors. Vs. Somwati and Ors. [(2020) 9 SCC 644].

3. Learned counsel further submitted that the finding of the learned Tribunal is based solely on the site plan which cannot be treated to be a substantive piece of evidence. He submitted that even if the same is taken into consideration, the conclusion as arrived by the learned Tribunal proves to be totally contrary even to the site plan. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgments passed by this Court in Sushila v. Mohan Singh & Ors. [2015 (2) R.A.R. 564 (Raj.)] and United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Sugni Devi & Ors. [2013 R.A.R. 21 (Raj.)].

4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the learned Tribunal has held the deceased to be guilty of contributory negligence, also because of the fact that he did not have a valid driving licence. He submitted that this cannot be a ground for holding a driver to be negligent. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Shanti Lal & Anr. v. Ramesh Chandra & Ors. [2019 (4) DNJ (Raj.) 1597].

5. Arguing upon the quantum of compensation, learned counsel submitted that the future prospects as well as the compensation qua the loss of consortium have wrongly not been granted by the learned Tribunal to the claimants. In support, he relied upon the latest pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 ACJ 2700 (SC)] and Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. [2022 Supreme(SC) 1231].

6. Despite service, none has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 Driver as well as respondent No.2-Owner of the Jeep involved in the accident.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company submitted that the findings as arrived by the learned Tribunal are totally in conformity with the site plan as well as the material which was available on record. Learned counsel submitted that a bare perusal of the site plan makes it clear that the deceased-motorcyclist was equally responsible for the accident as he drove in a negligent manner. Learned counsel submitted that the driver of the vehicle in question i.e. Jeep was possessing a license to drive light motor vehicle only and was not entitled to drive a commercial vehicle. Therefore, there was a specific breach of condition of the insurance policy and the insurer was therefore, not liable to pay the compensation. In support of his conten