JUDGMENT

Nidhi Gupta, J.

CM 6055-CII/2020

Since there is delay of 40 days in refiling the appeal, aforesaid application has been filed seeking condonation of the said delay.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay in refiling the appeal is condoned.

3. CM 6056-CII/2020

4. Since there is delay of 87 days in filing the appeal, aforesaid application has been filed seeking condonation of the said delay.

5. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Main Appeal

6. Present appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.5,11,000/- granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') vide Award dated 9.5.2019 passed in MACT case No.50/2018 under section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Sole appellant before this Court is widow of the deceased, and claimants No. 2 to 4 are proforma respondents No. 3 to 5 herein, being major sons of the deceased Ram Chander.

7. Ld. Tribunal on appraisal of facts, pleadings and evidence on record held that the deceased had died due to injuries suffered by him in motor vehicular accident that took place on 23.3.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of Verna CRDi SX(O) 1.6 bearing registration No. DL-10CD-7642 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle') being driven and owned by respondent no.1 and insured by respondent no.2. The Tribunal awarded compensation as above along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. Liability to pay the compensation was joint and several.

8. Ld. Counsel for the appellants assails the impugned Award on the ground that deduction of 50% made by the Ld. Tribunal on account of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is unfounded and contrary to the evidence on record and therefore, deserves to be reversed. It is submitted that accident had taken place solely due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1, and ld. Tribunal has ignored vital evidence in this regard in the form of testimony of PW2 Raj Mohan who was author of the FIR as also eyewitness of the accident in question. It is submitted that as per statement of PW2 deceased was not at fault in the accident and therefore, ld. Tribunal is in patent error in deciding issue no.1 partly in favour of the appellant and partly in favour of respondent no.1.

9. It is further submitted that nothing has been granted by way of parental consortium to claimants 2 to 4. In support ld. Counsel relies upon judgment of the Delhi High Court in Kanti Devi and others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., MAC.App 361/2013 decided on 23.9.2022.

10. No other argument has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant.

11. Heard.

12. Findings of the ld. Tribunal in respect of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased are contained in paras 15 to 18 of the impugned Award which are reproduced hereunder:-

"15 A perusal of the FIR (Ex.P1) would show that it was by Raj Mohan (PW2) which read that on 23.3.2018, deceased Ram Chander was on his way back from village Kabulpur to his home after completing his personal work. His son Raj Mohan (PW2) and Nitin were following him on a separate motor-cycle. When they reached near Takshila School, at outer Sunaria Bye-pass, Rohtak, Respondent No.1 came on Verna Car bearing registration No.DL-10CD/7642 from the side of Jalebi Chowk, driving the car in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the Scooty of the deceased. As a result of this, Ram Chander suf