The court affirmed that contributory negligence must be supported by substantive evidence, and modified compensation reflects adherence to established legal principles.

1. Appellants - claimants have questioned the legality and propriety of the impugned award dated 7.9.2013 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 33 of 2013 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the claim application in part and awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,43,000 as compensation in a death case.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 17.1.2012 at about 2 p.m., Anuruddha Singh Dewangan was travelling on his bicycle and going to Dhamtari from his village Surpa, while so, when he reached near the house of one Mordhwaj at village Arkar, one Haiwa truck bearing registration No. WB 37 - B 0049 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') dashed the bicycle of Anuruddha Singh Dewangan from its back side and caused the accident. In the aforementioned accident, Anuruddha Singh Dewangan suffered grievous injuries over his head and waist and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The matter was reported to concerned police station, based upon which Crime No. 15 of 2012 for the offence punishable under S.304 - A was registered against respondent No. 1 / non - applicant No. 1, driver of the offending vehicle.

3. Appellants - claimants who are widow, children and widowed mother of the deceased have filed claim application under S.166 and S.140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act') seeking compensation of Rs. 65,05,000 on account of untimely motor accidental death of Anuruddha Singh Dewangan mentioning therein that the deceased was earning Rs. 400 per day by doing the work of mason.

4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 / non - applicant Nos. 1 and 2, who are driver and owner of the offending vehicle, submitted reply to claim application pleading therein that the accident was on account of negligence on the part of deceased bicycle rider and false and fabricated report / first information report was registered against non - applicant No. 1. It was further pleaded that the amount claimed in the claim application is highly exaggerated and the offending vehicle was insured with non - applicant No. 3 / insurance company; liability for depositing the amount of compensation, if any, awarded would be on the insurance company.

5. Respondent No. 3 / non - applicant No. 3 / insurance company submitted reply to claim application pleading therein that there is no document placed on record with regard to income and age of deceased as well as there is no certificate of training of mason by the deceased to say that the deceased was working as mason. It was further pleaded that no information as required under S.158 (6) of the MV Act was forwarded to the insurance company; insurance of offending vehicle was denied; there was no valid and effective driving licence with non - applicant No. 1; no valid permit and fitness of the offending vehicle on the date of accident and thereby there was breach of conditions of insurance policy; insurance company is not liable to satisfy the amount of compensation.

6. Learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by the respective parties has formulated five issues for consideration including issues with regard to breach of conditions of insurance policy and contributory negligence on the part of deceased Anuruddha Singh Dewangan amongst others. To prove the claim application, claimant