The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of contributory negligence and the correct assessment of income and future prospect for compensation.

Dissatisfied with the sum of Rs.11,91,250/- awarded by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in his judgment dated 27-2-2015 of T.S.(MAC) No. 101 of 2011, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimants through the appellant No. 1 for enhancement of the compensation.

2. The material facts are hardly in dispute. On 4-3-2011 at about 1 PM, one Laxman Saha (now deceased), riding in a motor bike bearing registration No. TR-01L-8327, was proceeding from Champaknagar towards Teliamura by the left side along Assam-Agartala Road when a truck bearing registration No.TR-01B-1749 forcefully hit one side of the motor bike and flung him to road thereby causing serious multiple injuries on his body. He was rushed to Teliamura Hospital but was ultimately taken to GBP Hospital, Agartala for better treatment. He, however, succumbed to his injuries on the same day. It is the case of the appellants that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. Teliamura Police Station registered Case No.18/2011 against the driver U/s 279/304-A IPC. The appellants thereafter filed the claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.56,15,000/- by impleading the owner of truck and the insurer, who are arraigned in this appeal as respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 respectively. According to the appellants, the deceased, who was 35 years old, was carrying on the wholesale business in rice and garments with an income of Rs.60,000/- per month at the time of the accident. He is survived by his wife and his two minor daughters, i.e. the appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein.

3. The claim petition was contested by both the owner of the truck (respondent 1) and the insurer (respondent 2). In her written statement, the respondent No. 1 denied the claim of the appellants and attributed the cause of the accident to the negligent driving of the motor bike by the deceased. In any case, she asserted that the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2, who was liable to satisfy any award passed by the Tribunal and not by her. The insurer-respondent, in its written statement, denied any liability as there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the truck in that accident. It also disputed the age and income of the deceased. It, therefore, submitted that the claim petition did not have any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for consideration:

1. Whether the deceased Laxman Saha, S/o Late Upendra Saha, aged about 35 years, died in a vehicular accident occurred on 4-3-2011 at about 1 PM at Barmura near Bankumari Mandir on Assam-Agartala Road under Jirania PS due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. TR-01-B-1749 (Truck) by its driver?

2. Whether the claimant petitioners are entitled to get any compensation due to the said death, if so, what would be the quantum of compensation and who shall be held liable for payment of the same?

3. What other relief/reliefs are the parties entitled to?

5. The appellant No. 1 examined herself and one other witness to prove her case and produced some documents, which were marked Exhibits 1 to 7 series. The respondent No. 1 did not examine herself as a witness but exhibited some documents such as photocopies of the Registration Certificate, Permit, Fitness Certificate, etc. whereas the respondent No. 2 neither examined any witness nor exhibited any documents to substantiate its case. On the conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment, which is under challenge in this appeal.

6. Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. P.S. Roy, the learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the Tribunal has misunderstood the concept of contributory negligence and has in the process perversely held that the deceased was equally negligent and responsible for the accident which resulted in his death; no shred of evidence was ever adduced