The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of claimants to compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, and the principles for determining compensation, as well as the burden of proof for contributory negligence in motor vehicle accidents.

1. Heard learned counsel for appellant.

2. This appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 ( hereinafter referred to as the " Act, 1988") is preferred by New India Assurance Company Limited against judgment and award dated 6.8.2016 passed by Sri Gulab Singh II, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Court no. 12, Bulandshahar in MACP No. 419 of 2014, whereby compensation of Rs. 6,30,176/- was awarded to claimants -respondent against claim of Rs.28,82,000/- claimed for death of sole bread winner.

3. Learned counsel for appellant has pressed its challenge to the judgment and award on the following grounds only:

(i) That compensation awarded is higher than what claimants were entitled to, as they are not dependent on deceased, and they are not entitled for compensation on the basis of dependency but are entitled for compensation only on non pecuniary basis namely amount under No fault liability.

(ii) That Tribunal committed a glaring error in not invoking principle of contributory negligence in present case.

4. Brief facts necessary for our purpose are that on 9.10.2014 a accident took place in which Ayub Khan died. It is an admitted position of fact that Ayub Khan who was going on a moped which collided with Mahendra Max Pikup No. U.P.-81 BT-2086 driven by opponent no. 1 and owned by opponent no. 2 and insured with appellant. Tribunal after considering all evidence led before it awarded Rs.6,30,176/- with 7% interest. It is not in dispute that claimants were legal representative and legal heirs of deceased. Owner filed its reply which was of denial and contended that even if it is proved that his vehicle was involved in accident, driver had valid driving licence, and none of terms of policy of Insurance of vehicle were breached and vehicle was insured with New India Insurance Company Limited. Insurance Company filed its reply which was one of denial. Respondents did not lead any oral evidence to prove their defence.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for appellant that Tribunal has erred in granting compensation of Rs.6,30,176/- though claimants were sons / heirs of deceased and were not entitled to any amount more than that specified under Section 140 of Act, 1988 as they were major and not dependant on deceased. To bring home this submission, learned counsel has relied on Manjuri Bera ( Smt) Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643 . It is further submitted that claimants were not dependant and income of deceased was not proved. It is submitted that service record of deceased was not proved so as to prove age and income of deceased and witness-Rupendra Kumar also did not prove salary of deceased. He has taken us through the site plan and contended that Tribunal has wrongly relied on so called eye witness to hold the driver of bolero as the sole tort fessor though evidence to contrary was there. It is further contended that claim petition is not regular trial but it is an inquiry and these all material which is placed before Tribunal, whether proved or not, (exhibited or not), are required to be taken into consideration for deciding matter. It is contended that finding holding that driver of vehicle insured by appellant alone was negligent is bad on facts.

Ist challenge : -

6. It would be necessary to advert to provisions of Sections 140, 160 and 168 of Act, 1988 as learned counsel has taken us through judgment in Manjuri Bera ( Smt) Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) to contend that nothing more than mentioned as fixed compensation under Section 140 of Act, 1988 was to be awarded to claimants .

7. Section 166 read with section 140 of Act, 1988 reads as under :

"140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.--

(1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehi