The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of contributory negligence and the assessment of compensation based on legal precedents and principles.

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

All these three appeals are directed against award dated 06.07.2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Haridwar, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 06 of 2004, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 8,60,000/- with 5% interest thereon, as compensation to the claimants, and directed that 50% of the sum shall be paid by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and remaining 50% shall be paid by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited.

2) Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record of the Tribunal.

3) Brief facts of the case are that on 22.06.2003, at about 1:15 p.m., claimants’ son Kunal Rana alongwith his relative Puneet Verma was going from Roorkee to Ghaziabad in motorcycle bearing Registration No. UA08-B- 2613. It is alleged by the claimants that a bus bearing Registration No. UP15Q-9676 belonging to Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and dashed at the motorcycle near Partapur, opposite Jain Hotel. Consequently, the motorcyclist got disbalanced and another vehicle (Truck) bearing Registration No. HR46/8264, which was also being driven rashly and negligently, crushed Kunal Rana, who suffered injuries and died of the same. According to the claimants, deceased was earning Rs. 22,500/- per month. With these pleadings, the claimants (parents of the deceased) claimed Rs. 38,74,100/- as compensation.

4) Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation contested the claim petition and filed its written statement alleging that the motorcyclist was at fault, and the driver of the answering respondent’s driver was neither rash nor negligent in driving the vehicle. Respondent No.5 (owner of the truck) also contested the claim petition, and pleaded that it was not the truck driver, who was at fault but the driver of the bus. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., with whom the truck was insured pleaded that the vehicle (truck) bearing Registration No. HR46/8264 was not being driven with valid papers. The United India Insurance Company Ltd., with whom motorcycle was insured also filed its written statement.

5) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed following issues:-

1) Whether on 22.06.2003, at about 1:15 p.m., when the deceased (Kunal Rana) was going on motorcycle bearing Registration UA08-B-2613, the bus bearing Registration No. UP 15Q-9676 was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, and consequently, dashed at the motorcycle, whereafter, the motorcyclist got further dashed by another vehicle (truck) bearing Registration No. HR46/8264, due to which, the motorcyclist (Kunal Rana) died of the injuries suffered by him in the accident?

2) Whether the truck bearing Registration No. HR46/8264 was being driven with valid driving license by its driver?

3) Whether the motorcyclist himself was at fault at the time of accident?

4) To what amount of compensation, and from whom, the claimants are entitled?

6) After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,60,000/- as amount of compensation to the claimants holding that the drivers of the bus and the truck were at fault, as such, each one of them was liable for contributory negligence. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,405/- per month and applied multiplier of 17, after deducting half of the income, which the deceased would have spent on himself, awarded the compensation. Aggrieved by award dated 06.07.2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Haridwar, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 06 of 2004, AO No. 544 of 2006, was filed by the claimants, AO No. 604 of 2006 was filed by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and AO No. 146 of 2007 was filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

7) On behalf of the claimants, it is argued before this Court that the Tribunal has erred in law in not assessing the monthly income of the deceased as shown in the s