JUDGMENT :

1. The claimants namely, Smt. Amita Sinha and Miss Shashi Priya (Minor) have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the Award dated 15.02.2012 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 138/1997, whereby the claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,98,000/-along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of admission of the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act i.e. 20.08.2011 from the opposite party no. 3 i.e. the National Insurance Company Ltd. after deducting the amount of Rs. 50,000/-if paid to claimants under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act. If the awarded amount is not paid within a period of 60 days from the date of Award, there shall be penal interest @ 8% per annum from the date of Award i.e. the stipulated period till its payment.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, has assailed the impugned Award for enhancement on three counts:-firstly, the learned Tribunal has wrongly held contributory negligence @ 50% contrary to the evidence brought on record by A.W.-1 namely, Mirtunjay Singh and A.W.-2 namely, Abhishek Kumar Sinha, secondly, the learned Tribunal has awarded less compensation under conventional head and in view of paragraph-59.8 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 the compensation under conventional head ought to be granted to the tune of Rs. 70,000/-i.e. Rs. 40,000/-for loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/-for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/-for loss of love and affection and thirdly, the interest ought to be given from the date of filing of the claim application, in view of Section 171 of Motor Vehicles Act and that too @ 7.5% S.I. in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal and Sons Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2008 (4) JCR 79 (SC).

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that without discharging the duty by the Insurance Company with regard to contributory negligence of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has wrongly held and ignored the evidence of A.W.-1 Mirtunjay Singh, who claimed to be an eye-witness and A.W.-2 Abhishek Kumar Sinha, nephew of the deceased, who was travelling with the deceased and was informant of case of Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 93/97 dated 05.04.1997 for the offences under Sections 279/337 and 304A of the I.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the Insurance Company has not discharged its liability by examining the Trekker driver to hold that there was 50% contributory negligence of the deceased too, as such the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal shifting 50% liability upon the deceased as contributory negligence is erroneous finding.

5. This Court perused the case of the claimants as stated in para-2 of the impugned judgment, where it has been recorded that on 05.04.1997 at 11:25 a.m. Shashi Ranjan Sinha (deceased) was going on motorcycle along with his nephew Abhishek Kumar Sinha from Damoda to Bokaro Steel City and when they reached near Barga Pool Naya More on left flank of the road, a Trekker bearing No. BR-20D-6161, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, crushed Shashi Ranjan Sinha to death and the pillion rider Abhishek Kumar Sinha also sustained serious injuries on his person and the said motorcycle was also badly damaged.

6. This Court has further perused the impugned Award, where the learned Tribunal has discussed almost all the issues to hold 50% contributory negligence of the Trekker driver and 50% of the deceased. The relevant para is profitably quoted here:

“The evidence of A. W. 1 is not believable as he has deposed the boundary of place of accident in para 7 of his cross examination and as per boundary of the place of accident as stated by him it appears that there is no road on its boundary to show