JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

[1]. Vide this common judgment, the above noted two appeals, bearing FAO No.6391 of 2011 and FAO No.6411 of 2011, are being decided as both the appeals lay challenge to the award dated 20.07.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby an amount of Rs.17,75,000/- was awarded as compensation to the appellants/claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. For brevity, the facts are being culled out from FAO No.6391 of 2011 for reference.

FACTS

[2]. A claim petition came to be filed at the instance of appellants/claimants before the learned Tribunal, praying for grant of compensation considering monthly income at the rate of Rs 50,000/- on account of death of Sham Lal @ Sham Sunder Sharma in a vehicular accident which took place on 01.07.2010, while alleging rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1-driver.

[3]. Learned Tribunal after appraisal of evidence on record held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2/driver and after assessing income of deceased @ Rs.15,000/- per month taking into account Income Tax Returns of the deceased, awarded compensation in the following manner:-

Further, liability was jointly and severally fastened upon the driver, owner and the insurer of the offending car, but was to be indemnified by the Insurance Company.

[4]. Being aggrieved of the award dated 20.07.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal, the present appeals were preferred by the appellants-claimants for modification of the award as well as for enhancement of compensation and by the Insurance Company for reduction of compensation respectively. Facts as specified in the claim petition about the factum of motor vehicular accident and the issue regarding negligence of the driver have been held by the learned Tribunal in favor of claimant Nos.1 to 5. However, the appellant-respondent/Insurance Company, by way of cross-appeal, assailed the said finding by alleging contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as well as the driver and sought apportionment of liability in the ratio of 50:50.

ARGUMENTS

[5]. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the deceased was a businessman and despite the Income Tax Returns proved on record as Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-3 showing gross total income of the deceased as Rs.1,65,850/- and Rs.1,92,050/- for the Assessment Year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 respectively, demonstrating steady increase, learned Tribunal wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month. It was further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in determining the age of the deceased as 48 years, whereas the correct age of the deceased was 40 years, as duly reflected from the PAN card taken on record as Ex.P-1. Learned counsel further argued that the learned Tribunal failed to award any compensation towards loss of consortium and that the amount awarded under the other conventional heads as well as the rate of interest awarded on the compensation was also on the lower side. On the said grounds, reassessment and enhancement of compensation was prayed.

[6]. Per contra, learned counsel representing the Insurance Company, vehemently argued that the compensation awarded as well as the interest on compensation was towards the higher side and therefore prayed for reduction in the same. The finding recorded with respect to the negligence attributed to the driver of the offending vehicle was also assailed while submitting that present was a case of contributory negligence.

[7]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned representing appellants/claimant Nos.1 to 5.

Discussion

Findings as regards Contributory Negligence

[8]. In the present case, Nitin Sharma (PW-2), an eye-witness to the accident, categorically deposed that on the intervening night of 30.06.2010/01.07.2010 a