JUDGMENT :

Ajai Tyagi, J.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 26.4.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Gautambudh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 218 of 2009 (Smt. Satwinder Gill and others v. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others), whereby the claim petition of the claimants was allowed and awarded a sum of Rs. 16,69,059/- as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Learned Tribunal also held contributory negligence to the tune of 50% each of the drivers, involved in the accident.

2. The claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation and setting aside the part of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased/driver of the car.

3. The brief facts of the case are that claimants-appellants filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition before the Tribunal for claiming the compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of Dr. Narendra Singh in a road accident with the averments that on 18.1.2008 deceased was going with his friend by car bearing registration No. H.P. 31A 1723 from his house, situated in Delhi, to Koal Diem Hydro Power Project, Sundar Nagar, District Mandi (Himanchal Pradesh). Between 2:30 and 2:45 p.m. when he was going on Kallar Uphill, Jhuggi Moad, a truck bearing No. H.P. 11 A 7045, which was coming down-hill and was being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver, hit the car of the deceased.

4. In this accident, Dr. Narendra Singh (deceased) and his friend were badly injured and Dr. Narendra Singh (deceased) died in P.G.I., Chandigarh due to fatal injuries.

5. The owner/driver of the offending truck and owner of the car filed their written statements and insurance companies of both the vehicles also filed their respective written statements. Learned Tribunal held that both the drivers of the vehicles involved in accident were negligent to the tune of 50% each.

6. Heard Mr. Samir Sharma, learned Advocate assisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, Mr. Pawan Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. Perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that learned Tribunal has given wrong finding regarding the plea of contributory negligence because the deceased was not at all negligent in driving the car. It is also submitted that at the place of accident, the car was going uphill and the truck was coming down-hill. As per the Traffic Rules and Regulations of driving in hill areas, the driver of the vehicle has to give precedence to a vehicle, which is going uphill but in this case, the truck driver was coming down-hill and driving very fast. This fact is proved by the fact that it has come in evidence that there were tire marks of the truck nearly in the distance of 25 feet. It shows that driver of the truck was driving at a very high speed and did not give passage to the car of the deceased.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has also submitted that accident had taken place due to the sole negligence of truck driver. With regard to the compensation, learned counsel has submitted that no amount has been awarded by the Tribunal for future loss of income of the deceased while the income tax return of the deceased show that income of the deceased was increasing every year. It is next submitted that there were five dependents on the deceased, hence, learned Tribunal should have deducted ¼ for personal expenses of the deceased while it has deducted 1/3 of the income, which is absolutely illegal and arbitrary.

9. Further submission is that learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of estate, which are on the very lower side and moreover, no amount has been granted for loss of consortium.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the