The court emphasized the importance of concrete evidence in determining negligence and upheld the compensation granted by the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT

B.P. Routray, J. - All the appeals are arising out of the common judgment/award dated 9th April, 2018 passed by learned 1st M.A.C.T., Cuttack in five claim applications.

2. MACA Nos.905, 907, 908, 909 and 910 of 2018 have been preferred by the insurer and rest of the appeals are preferred by the respective claimants. The chart below is prepared showing those appeals with corresponding claim applications and awards passed therein.

3. The common case of the claimants is that on 2.11.2010 three deceased persons along with the injured were coming in a Tavera vehicle bearing Registration No.OR-02-BF-3691 from Kolkata to Bhubaneswar. At around 4.30 a.m., said Tavera vehicle dashed against the truck bearing Registration No.MH-31-CB-1359 (hereinafter referred as 'offending truck') from behind. As a result of this, three persons died and two persons were injured. It is submitted by the claimants that when the Tavera was coming near Bonth Chhaka, Bhadrak, the offending truck overtook it with high speed and applied sudden brake on the road for which the driver of the Tavera dashed behind it losing his control. Bhadrak Town Police Case No.197 dated 2.11.2010 was registered on the complaint lodged by Sharada Charan Mohanty, who is the injured-claimant in MAC No.104/2011. Upon completion of investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the offending truck for alleged commission of offences under Sections 279/337/338/304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The claimants examined 11 witnesses on their part and marked 52 documents as Ext.1 to 52. The insurer, i.e. M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd. examined two witnesses from their side and filed 10 documents which are marked as Ext.A to K.

5. The learned Tribunal upon adjudication held entire negligence on the driver of the offending truck for cause of the accident and accordingly granted compensation of respective amounts in each case as stated above.

6. The common challenge of the Insurance Company in all the appeals is regarding attribution of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Tavera vehicle. It is contended that since the Tavera dashed behind the truck, major part of negligence should be on the driver of the Tavera vehicle. But no claim has been raised against the owner of the Tavera vehicle and even he was not made a party in the claim applications. It is further submitted that the prayer to add the owner of the Tavera vehicle as a party to the claim applications was rejected by the learned Tribunal and not only this, but the prayer of the insurer to examine the Police Investigating Officer was also rejected by the learned Tribunal. It is therefore submitted that in such scenario, the scope of proving contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Tavera vehicle was closed.

7. In addition to the above, the insurer has also questioned the quantum of compensation in each case which will be dealt subsequently at the relevant paragraphs.

8. The respective claimants have come up in appeal praying for enhancement of the quantum of compensation in each case on separate grounds, which will be dealt in subsequent paragraphs.

9. As stated above, the contributory negligence on the part of the Tavera vehicle is the most contentious issue raised by the insurer. In this regard,