The burden of proof for contributory negligence, the application of the principle of 'res ipsa loquitur' in motor accident cases, and the necessity of awarding future loss of income are central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this appeal, the claimants-appellants have approached this Court for enhancement of compensation awarded to appellants-claimants by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Senior District Judge, Ghaziabad ('Tribunal', for short), vide judgment/award dated 12.5.2008 in M.A.C.P. No.204 of 2004 (Smt. Raj Bala And Others vs. Parvesh Kumar And Another) whereby claimants/appellants was awarded Rs.9,87,300/-, with 7% rate of interest as compensation.

2. Heard Shri Devendra Dhama, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and Shri Pawan Kumar Singh for the respondents-Insurance Company. None appears for the owner.

3. The accident involving the vehicle, though denied by the driver in his evidence, has been held by the Tribunal to be involved in the accident and the finding of fact that the accident occurred on 11.2.2004 involving the vehicle insured by the respondents has attained finality. Secondly, the finding of facts that the deceased, namely, Suresh Chandra, aged about 46 years worked in Nagar Telephone Nigam Ltd, Tugalkabad, New Delhi and left his widow, two sons and a daughter are also not in dispute. The income of the deceased is also not in dispute. The twin questions raised for our consideration for which this Court is called upon to decide are findings of the Tribunal as to whether the deceased driving motorcycle was a contributor to the accident had taken place to the tune of 50% and whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was in consonance with the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in catena of decisions for computing compensation.

4. As far as the compensation to be granted is concerned, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that in the State of Uttar Pradesh Rule 220 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 2011, came into force in the year 2011 and hence, no future loss of income could be granted as in this case accident occurred in the year 2007. The Apex Court has held that future loss of income has to be awarded whether the rules specify or not. This is an accident of the year 2007. Just because the rules are silent, the claimants cannot be deprived of this benefit. In catena of decisions even prior to the year 2011 future loss of income was considered to be added to income of deceased. We cannot accept the submission of Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company as in catena of decisions which are binding on this Court namely Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar, AIR 2020 SC 4424, Erudhaya Priya Vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., AIR 2020 SC 4284 and Karthik Subramanian Vs. B. Sarath Babu & Anr., reported in 2021 ACJ 993 have laid down the principle that future loss of income has to be granted.

5. As far as the negligence is concerned, Shri Dhama, learned counsel for the appellants, has taken us to the evidence of four witnesses and the evidence of the driver of the opponent, who has stepped into the witness box. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that 50% decided to be contribution of appellants in view of the judgment in the case of Archit Saini and another vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., AIR 2018 (SC) 1143 is bad particularly when the Tribunal has returned the finding to this effect that the deceased was on correct side. The evidence of PW4, namely, Sunil Kumar, is on record, where the witness has deposed that it was one way path and the accident occurred in side lane where the driver of the opponent could not have come with his tempo and, therefore, it is submitted that in view of the judgments quoted herein below the finding holding the deceased to be guilty of 50% is bad, (a) Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & others, (2015) 0 Supreme(SC) 397; (b) T.O. Anthony vs. Karvarnan and others, (2008) 0 Supreme(SC) 157 (c) Rahisa Begum Since Deceased and another vs. Susheel Chandra Gupta and another, 2021 La