JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and learned counsel for the claimants/respondents.

2. Since, these two appeals are arising out of same accident and involve common issues, therefore, both the appeals are being decided together with this common judgement.

3. For convenience, the facts are being delineated from F.A.F.O. No.1177 of 2022.

4. The F.A.F.O. No.1177 of 2022 has been preferred Reliance General Insurance Company challenging the award dated 28.09.2013. F.A.F.O. No.3233 of 2019 has been preferred by the claimants challenging the award dated 28.09.2013 on the ground that finding of the Tribunal that there was contributory negligence of the deceased in the accident is illegal and compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not adequate.

5. The facts of the case are that one Dr. Rajendra Singh on 07.07.2010 at about 10:00 P.M. was standing near his house waiting for rickshaw when he was hit by Tempo No.U.P.-15-W-9707 driven by its driver rashly and negligently. In the said accident, Dr. Rajendra Singh suffered injuries and lateron died during treatment at Subharti Hospital, Meerut. Further case of the claimants in the claim petition is that the deceased at the time of death was 56 years of age and was working as Senior Consultant (Child Specialist) in P.L. Sharma Hospital, Meerut and was getting salary of Rs.96,000/-per month.

6. The owner of the offending Tempo filed written statement contending interalia that Tempo was driven by one Praveen Kumar, who was having a driving licence to drive the Tempo. He further pleaded that if any compensation is to be paid, the liability of the same is of the insurance company as the Tempo No.U.P.-15-W-9707 is duly insured with the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

7. The Reliance General Insurance Company also filed written statement contending interalia that there was no negligence of the driver of the offending Tempo in the alleged accident and further, the liability of the insurance company is subject to condition that all documents relating to Tempo are in order. On the basis of pleadings between the parties, the Tribunal framed as many as four issues.

8. Challenge has been raised by the insurance company as well as claimants in their respective appeals with regard to finding of Tribunal on issue no.1 in respect of negligence and issue no.4 with regard to quantification of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

9. On the issue no.1, the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record held that the accident had taken place by the Tempo No.U.P.-15-W-9707. The Tribunal further held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tempo. However, the Tribunal further proceeded to decide the issue of contributory negligence of the deceased in the accident and held that as the deceased abruptly came infront of the Tempo due to which the accident had occurred, and if the deceased had been careful, the accident would have been avoided. Accordingly, the Tribunal apportioned the negligence of the driver of the Tempo to the extent of 60% and that of deceased to the extent of 40%.

10. On the issue of quantification of compensation, the Tribunal on the basis of salary certificate for the month of June, 2010 held the income of the deceased to be Rs.96,701/-per month, and after deducting the income tax from the salary of the deceased held that compensation shall be computed by taking the income of the deceased to be Rs.9,45,591/-per annum. The Tribunal, thereafter, deducted 1/3rd from the income of the deceased towards the personal expenses of the deceased and thereafter, by applying the multiplier of 8 computed the compensation. The Tribunal reduced the compensation by 40% for the negligence of the deceased in the accident.

11. Challenging the aforesaid award, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has contended that once it has come on record that deceased came abruptly infront of the Tempo, which was the cause of the acci