JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Kaur Jeewan , J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the Award dated 24.08.2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal").

2. Misc. application bearing No.CM-2709-CII-2024 has been filed by the Cross-objector/claimants for condonation of 223 days' delay in filing the accompanying cross-objections, whereby prayer has been made for enhancement of compensation.

3. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the CM application filed by the claimant/cross-objectors are arising out of the same Award, as such, both shall be decided together by this common order.

4. The factual matrix in brief is as under:-

4.1 The claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation regarding the death of Pala Ram in a roadside accident which occurred on 10.02.2011. Pala Ram (since deceased) was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-99FL(T) 6778 along with two pillion riders, namely, Satbir Singh and Raj Kumar. On way, a car bearing registration No. AS-25-1074 struck against the motorcycle. The accident is alleged to have taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the car by respondent No.5-Krishan Kumar. The motorcyclist-Pala Ram ultimately succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident.

4.2 The claim petition was contested by the driver of the car Krishan Kumar. Ashok Kumar, owner of the car did not appear before the Tribunal and he was proceeded against ex parte. The Insurance Company of the Car contested the petition and filed separate written statement.

4.3 The Tribunal framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the deceased Pala Ram died in an accident caused with Vehicle No. HR-99-FL (Temp) 6866 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 as alleged? ...OPP

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount of compensation and from whom? ...OPP.

3. Whether there are violations of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so its effect?... OPR

4. Relief."

4.4 The Tribunal Awarded a sum of Rs.7,31,200/- to the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with the liability since the motorcyclist was also negligent as driving a motorcycle with 02 pillion riders clearly indicates negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle. As such, the Tribunal ought to have held the deceased responsible for contributory negligence. In this regard, reliance has been placed on Angrejo Devi and others Vs. Jai Parkash and others, (2013) 2 RCR (Civil) 161; and Ved Kumari and another Vs. Kishan Lal and others, 1998 (47) DRJ.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants submitted that the motorcyclist was not negligent. It is submitted that the driver of the motorcycle cannot be held responsible for contributory negligence merely on the ground that there were 02 pillion riders; other factors and evidence has also to be considered to prove negligence on his part resulting into the accident. The Insurance Company has neither taken any plea of contributory negligence in the written statement, nor examined any witness, nor such issue was framed by the Tribunal. Reliance has been placed on the decision in Mohammed Siddique and another Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others", 2020 (3) SCC 57; and Arman and another Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others, 2021 ACJ 1505.

7. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the paper-book.

8. Satbir Singh, who was one of the occupants of the motorcycle, has appeared as PW-2 and categorically stated that Pala Ram (since deceased) was driving the motorcycle very carefully & cautiously, at a moderate speed and he was going on the correct side of the road. He was hit by the car being driven by respondent No.5 rashly and negligently. He has submitted that the car