The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of negligence in road accidents, specifically the distinction between composite negligence and contributory negligence, and the principles for assessing compensation in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Anurudh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and perused the record. None appears for the owner or driver of offending vehicle.

2. These appeals, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’), are preferred at the behest of the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 12.01.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Kanpur Dehat (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. Nos.398/2005, 399/2005 and 400/2005 (the Tribunal has passed separate awards).

3. The challenge to the decision regarding negligence of deceased and compensation for the death of two children of the appellant and his wife in the road accident which occurred on the fateful day are the twin issues posed for our decision. The finding of Tribunal about liability of insurance company has attained finality and there is no dispute about the same. The accident having caused death of three persons is not in dispute. The involvement of two vehicles is not in dispute. The age of deceased is also not in dispute before us.

4. The parties are referred to as claimant/appellant and the respondent/Insurance company.

5. The Apex Court in UPSRTC Vs.Km. Mamta and others, reported in AIR 2016 SC 948, has held that all the issues raised in the memo of appeal are required to be addressed and decided by the first appellate court.

6. The issues before us are to decide the twin issues posed for our consideration namely (1) Whether deceased driving motorcycle had contributed to the accident having taken place and, therefore, the deduction of the compensation for death of all three by the Tribunal is justified or not? (2) (a) The quantum of compensation awarded requires any re-computation (b) Whether percentage of interest granted requires interference by this Court or not?

7. The brief facts as culled out from record and necessary for our purpose are that on 17.5.2005 at about 4:30 p.m. elder son of appellant along with his mother and younger brother aged 6 were going from their house to Bangarmau by motorcycle, bearing no.UP70AU-2377. The deceased along with his mother and younger brother was plying his motorcycle and when he reached near Udaipur crossing in the district Kanpur Nagar, Tata Jeep, bearing no.UP77C-3262 came from opposite direction which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently and dashed with the motorcycle and caused the accident, 3 persons scummed to the injuries sustained due to the accident and died on the spot. The claimant, who is father of two deceased and husband of third, filed claim petition. Owner of the Jeep and its Insurance company filed their respective written statements which were of denial.

8. The claimant examined himself as PW1. The documentary evidence was filed and proved so as to prove that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Jeep driver. The Tribunal after framing issues and on conclusion of evidence returned the finding that as there was head on collision, both were equally negligent.

9. The appeal, being appeal no.1176 of 2007, pertains to the death of younger son of the appellant Avanish whose age was between 6 – 7 years at the time of accident. Learned Tribunal has considered contributory negligence of driver of the offending Jeep and motorcycle to the tune of 50% each. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,25,000/-but deducted 1/2 from the calculated compensation and ultimately has awarded Rs. 1,14,500/-as compensation. The deduction of 1/2 or 50% was on account of contributory negligence of the driver of the motorcycle. These two aspects are under challenge. The appeal no.1177 of 2007 relates to wife of appellant and appeal no.1179 of 2007 is preferred by the father of the deceased, who was driving the vehicle.

10. Learned Counse