JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant against the award dated 10.08.2016 passed in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants was allowed and respondent No.3-Insurance company was made liable to pay compensation. The award is challenged on the ground that contributory negligence was wrongly attributed on the deceased-Shiv Shankar as well as quantum of compensation is on the lower side.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Shiv Shankar was employed as Assistant Lineman in the department of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (UHBVNL) and was posted at Power House, Lakhan Majra. He had also retired from Army. On 6.12.2015 the deceased was going towards village Lakhan Majra from village Nindana on his motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-15A/2376 to attend his duty. At about 6.30/7.00 p.m. when he crossed village Bainsi and reached before canal bridge his motor-cycle rammed into a stationary tractor bearing registration No.HR-15A/7753 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) as the same had been stationed on wrong side of the road by Kapil respondent No.1 without putting any indicator. Parking lights of the offending vehicle were also switched off. As a result thereof, he received multiple grievous injuries. The accident was witnessed by Satbir Sharma son of Mange Ram as he was following the deceased on another motorcycle. He immediately arranged some vehicle and shifted Shiv Shankar to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS), Rohtak where he was declared brought dead. He at the time of death was 49 years of age and was getting Rs.30,000/- per month as salary and Rs.17,000/- per month as pension from Army. His widow and daughter was dependent upon him. With these averments, they claimed Rs.70,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents, respondent No.1 being driver, respondents No.2 being owner and respondent No.3 being insurer of the offending vehicle respectively.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and contested the claim petition by filing their separate written replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle i.e. tractor bearing registration No.HR-15A/7753 by respondent No.1? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether Shiv Shankar has died due to the injuries received by him in the above said accident, if so to what amount of compensation and from whom, the claimants are entitled to? OPP

3. Whether there was willful violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so to what effect? OPR

4. Relief”

5. Thereafter, both the parties led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants. However, the learned Tribunal held that accident occurred due to contributory negligence of deceased-Shiv Shankar and driver of offending vehicle in the ratio of 50:50. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

7. Learned counsel for the appellants–claimants contends that the learned Tribunal has committed error in law and on facts in holding that the accident in question occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of both the deceased-Shiv Shankar and the driver of the offending vehicle (the tractor–trolley). He contends that the said finding is perverse, arbitrary, and not borne out from the evidence available on record.

8. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has gravely erred in deducting the amount of family pension received by the wife of the deceased while computing the loss of depend