Contributory negligence must be substantiated by evidence; lack thereof necessitates full liability of the insurer, not apportionment of compensation.

1. Insurance company / appellant in the present appeal who was respondent No. 3 in Tribunal has filed this appeal under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'Act of 1988') being aggrieved by the award dated 30.7.2019 in Claim Case No. 151/2018 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.), whereby Tribunal allowed application filed under S.166 of the Act of 1988 in part and calculated total compensation of Rs.1,84,43,100 on account of death of Deepak Vinod Xess / deceased.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 1.1.2018 at about 8 o'clock in the night deceased / Deepak Vinod Xess was going from Raipur to Jagdalpur in his own car bearing registration No. CG 10 FA 1913 from the right side at a very nominal speed. At the same time one Santosh Kumar Dhruv / respondent No. 3 in present appeal allegedly driving a new sold Tata 407 vehicle bearing registration No. CG 19 BG 5467 in a very rash and negligent manner dashed the car of the deceased from the front side, due to which the deceased sustained multiple injuries on various parts of his body. Soon after the accident the deceased was being taken to hospital but he succumbed to injuries before reaching the hospital. Report was lodged about the accident in Police Station Keshkal, Distict Kondagaon against Santosh Kumar.

3. Appellant No. 1 in Tribunal / respondent No. 1 in present petition is the wife of the deceased and appellant No. 2 in Tribunal / respondent No. 2 in present petition is the minor son of the deceased who have filed an application under S.166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.2,49,91,948 pleading therein that on the date of accident, deceased was 44 years of age, and was working in NMDC Iron and Steel Plant, Jagdalpur, District Bastar from which he was earning Rs.1,59,795.50 per month. Both wife and son were dependent upon the income of the deceased.

4. Santosh Kumar Dhruv who was respondent No. 1 in Tribunal and Mohd. Ibrahim who was respondent No. 2 in Tribunal have submitted their joint written reply in which they have denied all the contentions raised by the appellants in Tribunal in the compensation claim and have specifically expressed their statement by stating that respondent No. 1 in Tribunal was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. In the above accident, there was no negligence on the part of Santosh Kumar Dhruv / respondent No. 1 in Tribunal in fact the deceased was driving his car in a very careless and negligent manner. The accident was a result of head - on collision of both the vehicles. The wife of the deceased who was appellant No. 1 in the Tribunal is posted as an Assistant Professor in Central University and deceased at the time of incident was not having a valid driving licence. The car which was being driven by Santosh Kumar Dhruv / respondent No. 1 in Tribunal was insured with respondent No. 3 in Tribunal. On the aforementioned grounds Santosh Kumar Dhruv / respondent No. 1 and Mohd. Ibrahim / respondent No. 2 in the Tribunal plead to reject the said compensation claim application.

5. Whereas respondent No. 3 / insurance company in the Tribunal has also filed its written statement and has denied all the contentions of the claim petition by clearly stating that the wife of the deceased was working as an Assistant Professor in Central University and is earning more than Rs.1,50,000 per month. Wife of the deceased is upbringing their child and all his educational and other expenses are borne by the wife of the deceased only. Insurance company in its written statement has also mentioned that the deceased himsel