JUDGMENT

1. Assailing the award dated 18.7.2017 passed by Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Gwalior, in Claim Case No. 1800187/2016, this appeal has been preferred by the insurance company under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. The facts of the case in short are that the respondent No.1 preferred a claim application under the provisions of section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act for realizing amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.66,50,000/- for the permanent disability sustained by him in a road accident dated 8.2.2016 involving truck bearing No. RJ11-GA-6507. On the fateful day the aforesaid truck was insured with the appellant-insurance company. The aforesaid claim application was opposed by the appellant-insurance company on the grounds that the alleged accident took place owing to negligence on the part of the respondent No.1 himself, hence the claim application under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act was not tenable and the appellant-insurance company was not liable to pay any amount as compensation. The Tribunal vide impugned award held that the respondent No.1 is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.16,68,000/- along with interest and liability as to pay aforesaid amount of compensation has been fastened on the appellant jointly and severally with respondents No.2 and 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-insurance company.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is against the settled principles of law, hence the same is liable to be set aside. The Tribunal has erred in saddling the liability to pay the amount of compensation on the insurance company on the ground that the respondent No.1 was walking on the road and was dashed by the truck, therefore, on account of negligence of respondent No.1 the amount of compensation to the extent of contributory negligence on the part of respondent No.1 is liable to be deducted. It is further submitted that the disability certificate (Ex.P/53) has not been proved, despite the Tribunal has committed error in relying upon the same. It is also submitted that 90% disability has been mentioned in the certificate (Ex.P/53) but the Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the disability to the extent of 100%. The Tribunal has also erroneously applied the multiplier of 20. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal.

4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the submissions and have submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation payable by insurance company, respondents No.2 and 3, jointly and severally. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.

6. The present case is of permanent disability, wherein the injured has suffered crushed injury on both the limbs when he was standing by the side of the road. Both the legs of the injured were completely crushed by the offending truck by passing through the legs. The injured's both the legs have been amputated from the thigh region. At the time of accident, the injured was aged around 24 years and was working as meson. It is also apparent from the record that the injured was crushed by front wheel of the truck.

7. Learned counsel for the insurance company has submitted that as the injured was negligently crossing the road, therefore, the accident took place, hence, the case is of contributory negligence but in my opinion, as the legs of the injured were crushed by front wheel of the truck and it is not proved before the Tribunal that the injured was crossing the road negligently, therefore, the present case is not of contributory negligence. As per disability certificate, the injured had suffered 100% disability, as his