JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

The present appeal (FAO-8240-2017) has been filed by the appellant-insurance Company and the cross-objections (XOBJC-67-CII-2018) have been filed by the claimant-respondent No.l aggrieved by the award dated 05.09.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'). The parties are being referred to as Insurance Company, claimant and owner and driver for the sake of clarity.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the accident in the present case took place on 10.11.2015 when Buta Singh (claimant) was riding on a motorcycle Hero Honda bearing registration No.HR-24-7527 which was being driven by Kala Singh (deceased) and was going towards the fields at Kukranwali where they had taken a piece of land on contract for cultivation. Kala Singh was riding the motorcycle at a moderate speed and was wearing a helmet and following all the traffic rules while claimant (Buta Singh) was a pillion rider. At about 07.30 am, when they crossed the waterworks of the village and were going towards Dariyapur, a Cruiser Jeep bearing registration No.HR-56A-9425 being driven by its driver at a high speed, rashly and negligently, came from the opposite side and struck against the motorcycle, which resulted in the death of Kala Singh and injuries to claimant. Two claim petitions were filed - one by the legal representatives of Kala Singh and one by the claimant for the injuries received by him. Both the claim petitions were disposed off vide the impugned award dated 05.09.2017. The present appeal (FAO-8240-2017) arises out of the claim petition filed by the claimant (Buta Singh). The Tribunal awarded the following compensation :

3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has referred to Ex.R8, which is the Medico Legal Report of the claimant, wherein it has been noted by the doctor that there was an alcoholic smell present in the breath and he was grossly intoxicated. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that since both the claimant (Buta Singh) and the deceased (Kala Singh) were intoxicated, it would be a case of contributory negligence. It is further the contention that the income of the claimant has wrongly been assessed as Rs. 8,000/- per month and that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is on the higher side and there is no scope for any further enhancement.

4. Per contra the learned counsel for the claimant (Buta Singh) would contend that it has nowhere come in evidence as to the level of alcohol present in the blood of claimant (Buta Singh) or the deceased (Kala Singh). Learned counsel has referred to Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which states that if a person driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle has in his blood alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. of blood detected in a test by a breath analyzer or in any other laboratory test, he would be held to be under the influence of liquor and not otherwise. In the absence of any evidence regarding the alcohol content in the blood, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether the claimant (Kala Singh) and the deceased (Buta Singh) were intoxicated or not. It has further been contended that moreover the claimant was not the rider of the motorcycle and hence there would be no question of contributory negligence in the present case. Learned counsel for the claimant would further contend that the claimant was 24 years of age at the time of accident and was working as a mason. It is further the contention that as a result of the accident, the claimant had suffered head injury with closed fracture left femur with bo