The court reiterated that contributory negligence cannot be established merely from the accident's circumstances without direct evidence, resulting in a revised compensation amount reflecting the deceased's actual income.

1. The appellants - claimants have challenged the impugned award dated 10.5.2013 passed by Sixth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg, C.G. in Claim Case No. 42 of 2013, wherein learned Claims Tribunal allowed the claim application in part and awarded a total sum of Rs. 8,71,250 as compensation in a death case along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization after deducting 50 per cent of the amount towards contributory negligence.

2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 11.2.2011 when Mohammad Riyaju (now deceased) was travelling on his motor cycle bearing registration No. CG 07 - F 3329 and going towards Jama Masjid, Durg. When he was going across the railway overbridge of Dhamdha, at that relevant time, one truck (boring machine truck) bearing registration No. KA 07-8727 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending truck') driven by respondent No. 1 / non - applicant No. 1 dashed the motor cycle of deceased due to which he suffered grievous injuries over his person and succumbed to those accidental injuries. The accident was reported to concerned police station, based on which crime bearing No. 92/11 was registered against respondent No. 1 / non - applicant No. 1 for offences punishable under S.304 - A of Indian Penal Code. Appellants - claimants who are widow and children of the deceased filed claim application before the competent Claims Tribunal claiming Rs. 94,00,000 as total compensation on the ground that on the date of accident, the deceased was doing business of sale of vegetable and other business and thereby earning Rs. 3,00,000 per annum and they were dependent on the income of the deceased.

3. Non - applicant Nos. 1 and 2 / respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted their reply to the claim application and denied all the adverse pleadings made in the claim application and pleaded that the report has been lodged by mentioning wrong number of the vehicle, they have been falsely implicated in the criminal case and no accident as pleaded in the claim application took place from the offending truck; in addition to that they have also pleaded that on the date of accident offending truck was insured with respondent No. 3 / non - applicant No. 3 - insurance company and if any amount of compensation is awarded to the claimants then the liability will be upon respondent No. 3 / non - applicant No. 3 - insurance company.

4. Respondent No. 3 / non - applicant No. 3 - insurance company submitted its separate reply to the claim application and denied the fact of insurance of offending truck for want of insurance policy, the amount of compensation claimed is on higher side, they have not submitted income tax return of last three years and there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as there was head - on collision between the two vehicles. It was also pleaded that there was violation of conditions of insurance policy as on the date of accident, respondent No. 1 / non - applicant No. 1 - driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving licence, there was no valid permit and fitness of the vehicle.

5. On appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by the respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident took place between the offending truck and motor cycle in which deceased Mohammad Riyaju suffered accidental injuries and succumbed to those injuries. There was no violation of conditions of insurance policy issued in favour of the offending truck, there was contributory negligence to the exten