Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company laying challenge to the Award dated 17.04.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal") whereby MACT Case No. MACP/34 of 2016 dated 29.07.2016 filed by the claimants/respondents No.l to 4 herein, under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been allowed and compensation of Rs. 23,51,250/- has been awarded to the claimants.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceased Mukesh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 08.06.2016 due to the rash and negligent driving of the canter bearing registration No. PB-02AF-9855 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle") by respondent No.5. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.6 and insured by the appellant/Insurance Company. The 4 claimants are the 2 minor sons and parents of the deceased Mukesh.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company assails the impugned Award on the following grounds: -

a) that the claimants are not entitled to the awarded compensation as, on the date of accident deceased Mukesh was driving his motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-05P-2061 without any helmet. It is submitted that as per the Post-Mortem Report, the deceased has died due to the head injuries suffered by him. It is contended that accordingly, as per Section 128 of the Act, the deceased was liable for 50% contributory negligence. However, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned Award;

b) that income of the deceased has been taken on the higher side as per DC rates as Rs. 10,500/- per month; whereas as per the relevant Minimum Wage Notification dated 01.07.2016, income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs. 8,070/- per month;

c) that claimant No.4/father of the deceased was also considered to be a dependent upon the deceased. However, he could not have been taken as a dependent; and therefore, a deduction of 1/3 ought to have been made towards personal expenses; whereas learned Tribunal has made a deduction of 1/4 ;

d) that future prospects have been awarded at the rate of 50%; whereas keeping in view the fact that the deceased was 36 years old, future prospects ought to have been added @ 40%.

4. The above-said contentions of the appellant are vehemently contested by learned counsel representing the claimants who submits that the impugned Award suffers from no error and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

5. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in great detail.

7. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant for the reasons recorded hereinbelow:-

a) It has been firstly contended on behalf of the appellant that a deduction of 50% ought to have been made towards contributory negligence attributed to the deceased as he was driving his motorcycle without a helmet and as the deceased had died due to the head injuries. However, the said argument of the appellant is liable to be rejected as a perusal of the record reveals that in the written statement filed by the appellant before the learned Tribunal, no such plea has been raised by the appellant. Resultantly, no issue in respect of contributory negligence was framed by the learned Tribunal. Needless to say, an issue to this effect was not framed