The court determined that the deceased was not contributorily negligent and adjusted compensation based on accurate assessment of income and age, affirming the need for proper evidence in negligence claims.

JUDGMENT :

REKHA BORANA, J.

1. The present appeals arise out of the same judgment/Award dated 16.05.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Udaipur in MAC Case No.91/2018 (CIS No.977/2017) whereby a claim of Rs.32,17,500/- was awarded in the favour of the appellants-claimants.

2. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2256/2018 has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2646/2018 has been preferred by the Insurance Company with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned judgment/Award.

3. Brief facts as pleaded in the claim petition are that on 17.09.2017, while Savji Meena was travelling towards his home from Barapal on his motorcycle, a bus bearing registration No. RJ- 30-PA-2723 coming from Ahmedabad, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle due to which Savji sustained grievous injuries and unfortunately, succumbed to the injuries. An FIR was lodged pertaining to the said accident at Police Station Goverdhan Vilas, District Udaipur.

The offending vehicle, on the date of accident, was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited.

4. The learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.25,000/-, awarded total compensation of Rs.32,87,500/- in favour of the claimants, the breakup of which is as under:

Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 25.09.2017.

5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the accident occurred due to the equal negligence of the deceased and not solely because of negligent driving of the bus driver. He submitted that the matter in hand was a clear case of contributory negligence.

6. Counsel submitted that the accident occurred on NH-8 i.e four lane going from Ahmedabad to Udaipur. On the said national highway, a divider and service lane exists on both the sides. The bus was going on its correct side from Ahmedabad to Udaipur whereas it was the deceased who came from the wrong side/direction from the service lane and turned towards the left to cross the highway. As per Regulation 9 of the Rules of Road Regulations, 1989 it is necessary for those who enter the highway for the purpose of crossing and are at the intersection, to give way to the vehicles proceeding along the highway. However, the deceased failed to observe the said rule.

7. Counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred while not properly appreciating the circumstances narrated in the site plan. The mere fact that a challan was filed by the investigating authority against the bus driver could not have been the sole ground to fasten the liability on respondents.

8. In support of his above submissions, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Premlata Shukla and Others ; (2007) 13 SCC 476

(ii) Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri vs. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak and Other ; (2002) 6 SCC 455

9. On quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that at the time of the accident, the deceased was 57 years of age and thus, a multiplier of 9 ought to have been applied. Further, the learned Tribunal erred while assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.25,000/- whereas there was a blatant contradiction in the salary asserted by the claimants and the amount that was reflected in the bank account of the deceased.

10. P