JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned Award dated 18.5.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal , (for short, 'the learned Tribunal').

The brief facts of the appeal are that on 26.07.2008, the deceased, Dharam Singh alongwith his son and son-in-law, was going on motor cycle bearing No. HR-33-A-7652, to brick klin situated in Village Beejana, District Karnal. When they reached near Munak Drain Bridge at about 12.45 p.m, Jai Parkash, respondent No.1 coming on motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-40-A-6178, in rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules from the wrong side of the road, hit against the motor cycle of Dharam Singh as a result, the occupants of both the vehicles fell on the ground. Dharam Singh sustained grievous injuries, while others received minor injuries. Dharam Singh succumbed to his injuries on the spot. FIR No. 206 dated 26.7.2008 was registered against respondent No.1 at Police Station, Gharaunda.

As per the averments made in the claim petition No. 43 of 2008, under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by the claimants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ((hereinafter referred to as the MV Act), the deceased was 50 years old and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by cultivating vegetables, floriculture and dairy farming.

Upon notice, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 denied the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. It was the case of respondents No. 1 & 2 that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of deceased Dharam Singh, with two pillion riders, as he could not control the motor cycle and struck against the motor cycle of respondent No.1. Respondent No.3, the insurance company denied the accident. It was stated that a false claim petition was filed by the claimants in collusion with respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in order to claim compensation from the insurance company. The vehicle No. HR-40-A-6178 was not involved in the accident and the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence.

From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the accident in question causing death of Dharam Singh took place due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-40A-6178 by the respondent No.1? OPP.

2. Whether the claimants No. 1 was entitled to compensation, if so how much amount and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident.? OPR.

4. Relief.

Issue No.1 was decided by the Ld. Tribunal holding that the accident took place due to contributory negligence of the deceased Dharam Singh and respondent No.1 in the ratio of 50% each. While deciding Issue No.2, the Ld. Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,00,160/- as compensation and observed that respondent Nos. 1 to 3, being the driver, owner and the insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the 50% of the amount of compensation. While deciding Issue No.3, it was observed that Jai Parkash was having a valid driving licence at the time of accident and the issue was decided against the Insurance Company.

Aggrieved against the findings of Ld. Tribunal on Issue No.1, the appellants preferred this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Ld. Tribunal has wrongly decided Issue No. 1 after holding that the accident took place due to contributory negligence of deceased-Dharam Singh and Jai Parkash, respondent No.1. He further submitted that the Ld. Tribunal erroneously observed that the accident took place as deceased Dharam Singh could not control the motor cycle as he was carrying two pillion riders. He argued that riding of three persons on a motor cycle itself is not a ground to hold that there was negligence on the part of the deceased until such negligence is proved. He impugned the Award on the ground that the income assessed by the Ld. Tribunal is on the lower side a