JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

CM-1198-CII-2019 & CM-1199-CII-2019

These are the applications seeking condonation of delay of 279 and 8 days in re-filing and filing the appeal.

Notice of the applications was issued vide order dated 22.07.2019.

Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the averments made in the applications, which are duly supported by affidavits, the prayer is allowed as sufficient cause has been made out. As such, the delay of 279 and 8 days in re-filing and filing the present appeals are thus, hereby condoned.

MAIN CASE

1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 05.08.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), whereby a sum of Rs.4,45,000/- was awarded as compensation to the appellant/claimant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of claim petition till its actual realization on account of death of Sukhbir, after holding that the deceased was contributory negligent to the extent of 50%. FACTS

2. A claim petition came to be filed before the learned Tribunal, praying for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only), on account of death of Sukhbir in a vehicular accident which took place on 03.11.2016 while alleging rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1-driver.

3. Upon consideration of the pleadings and appraisal of the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Tribunal concluded that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No. HR-56A-0067. However, recorded that the deceased, Sukhbir, collided with the said truck from the rear side and did not exercise due care and caution, he was also held to be contributory negligent to the extent of 50%.

4. Being aggrieved of the award dated 05.08.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of compensation as well as for assailing the finding whereby the deceased was held guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 50%. Facts, as specified in the claim petition, about the manner of the accident and the issue regarding negligence of the driver recorded in favour of the appellants/claimants by the learned Tribunal, being not under challenge, are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/CLAIMANT.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal erred both on facts and in law while assessing the compensation and while attributing contributory negligence to the deceased. It was submitted that the evidence on record, including the testimony of the eye-witness Sameer (PW-1) and the FIR registered under Sections 279, 283, 304-A IPC, clearly established that the offending truck bearing registration No. HR-56A-0067 was negligently parked in the middle of the road without any indicator, reflector or parking lights, which directly resulted in the accident. Despite these circumstances, the learned Tribunal wrongly held the deceased to be equally negligent, ignoring the settled legal position that parking a vehicle on the metalled portion of the road without proper warning signals constitutes negligence on the part of the driver of such vehicle. Learned counsel further argued that the Tribunal also assessed the income of the deceased on a much lower side at Rs.7,500/- per month despite the unrebutted evidence showing that the deceased, a young electrician aged about 22 years, was earning substantially more. He submitted that the Tribunal failed to grant future prospects and filial consortium in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, thereby resulting in inadequate compensation. Hence, it was prayed that the impugned award be suitably modified by setting aside the finding of contributory negligence and by enhancing the compensation payable to the appellant.

ARGUMENTS ON B