JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri S.D. Ojha, Advocte, holding brief of Sri Ram Shiromani Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri N.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgment and order impugned.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 7.8.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Rampur (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.No. 50 of 2013 awarding a sum of Rs.1,43,616/- with interest at the rate of 6% as compensation.

3. Facts in brief as per claim petition are that Smt. Rita Singh wife of claimant, namely, Rajesh Singh was posted as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Mohanpura, Police Station Tanda, District Rampur. On 19.2.2013, she was travelling as a pillion rider on motor cycle bearing Registration No. UP 22 L 7256, which was being driven by Sri Chandrabhan Singh. When they reached Kharij brick-kiln, driver of a truck bearing Registration No. U.P. 21 N. 1312 driving rashly and negligently dashed said motorcycle as a result of which Smt. Rita Singh sustained grievous injury and later on she died on the spot itself. Chandrabhan Singh also sustained injuries and motorcyle also got damaged. Report of the accident was registered as Crime No. 112 of 2013 at Police Station Chowki Saidnagar under Sections 279, 304 A I.P.C.

4. The Tribunal seems to have deducted dearness allowance and has considered the income to be Rs.10,560/- which, according to Sri Ojha should not have been done in view of the Judgment in Vimal Kanwar and others v. Kishore Dan and others, AIR 2013 SC 3830 and Sunil Sharma Vs. Bachitar Singh, Laws (SC)-2011-2-73. According to him, as the deceased was below the 40 years and salaried person, 50 per cent should have been added to her income under the head of future prospect in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. It is submitted by counsel for the appellants that no amount under the head of pecuniary loss has been awarded by the Tribunal. Interest is also required to be enhanced.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel, Sri N.K. Srivastava ably assisted by Anubha Gupta that husband cannot be considered to be dependent on his wife. He would have his own earnings. In the pleadings also it is not shown that he was not having his own income. This submission is made, we think, for deduction of personal expenses of the deceased. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the driver of the motorcycle, namely, Chandra Ban is third party. The motorcycle belonged to appellant no. 1, namely, Rajesh Singh. It is further submitted that finding of fact of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with as the motor cyle was going ahead of the truck.

6. Sri Ojha submitted that the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal that motorcyclist was 90% negligent cannot be accepted. He further submitted that even if it is assumed that the driver Chandra Bhan Singh was negligent qua the appellants it would be a case of composite negligence. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan and others, 2008 (3) TAC 193 (SC) and Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & Others, 2015 LawSuit (SC) 469 to contend that no amount can be deducted from the compensation awarded from the legal heirs of the deceased, who was not coauthor of the accident.

7. The term negligence means failure to exercise care towards others which a reasonable and prudent person would in a circumstance or taking action which such a reasonable person would not. Negligence can be both intentional or accidental which is normally accidental. More particularly, it connotes reckless driving and the injured must always prove that the either side is negligent. If the injury rather death is caused by something ow