JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral)

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants challenging the award dated 15.07.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') aggrieved by the quantum of compensation as well as the finding whereby 50% amount of compensation has been deducted on account of contributory negligence of Harpreet Singh, driver of the Maruti Zen car bearing registration No.PB-31-D-6131, in which Dharamjit Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was a passenger.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that on 15.12.2012 the deceased - Dharamjit Singh - alongwith Harpreet Singh was going to Patiala in a Maruti Zen Car bearing registration No.PB-31-D-6131 which was being driven by the Harpreet Singh and the deceased - Dharamjit Singh was sitting as a passenger. They were being followed by Kirpal Singh and Rajvir Singh in their Jeep bearing registration No.PB-13-W-3200. At about 06.00 am, when they reached near bypass of village Nadampur towards Patiala, a truck bearing registration No.PB-13-V-9767 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle'), owned by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and driven by respondent No.1, was parked in the middle of the road without any indicators or parking lights. On account of the darkness, Harpreet Singh could not notice the offending vehicle parked in the middle of the road as a result of which it hit the offending vehicle. Both the occupants of the Maruti Zen car died on the spot. FIR was registered. In a written statement jointly filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 the accident was denied. However, it was admitted that the offending vehicle was owned by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company also filed it's written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and that the offending vehicle was not being driven as per provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :

1. Whether death of Dharamjit Singh took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of respondent Buta Singh of truck bearing registration No.PB-13-V-9767 on 15.12.2012 at about 06.00 am in the area of village Nadmpur bypass on Bhawanigarh-Patiala road ? OPA

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the applicants are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? OPA

3. Whether respondent No.1 was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident ? OPR-1

4. Relief.

4. The Tribunal on issue No.1 though held that the accident stood proved, however, held that Harpreet Singh, driver of the Maruti Zen car had not been driving his vehicle with care and caution and hence held it to be a case of contributory negligence to the extent of 50%. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation holding appellant No.1 entitled to the compensation and appellant No.2 and proforma respondent No.4, who are father and sister of the deceased, were not given any share in compensation. Hence, the present appeal by the claimant-appellants.

5. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that the Tribunal merely on the premise that the Maruti Zen car was not being driven carefully and with caution, keeping in view the inclement weather and the time when the accident took place, wrongly held it to be a case of contributory negligence especially when the deceased was only a passenger in the said car and could not in any manner have contributed to