Challenging the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant–

Insurance Company raised two principal contentions. Firstly, it is contended that the learned Tribunal failed to consider contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. According to the appellant, the deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident and had sustained fatal head injuries; therefore, a reasonable percentage ought to have been deducted towards contributory negligence. Secondly, it is contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in deducting only one-fourth towards personal expenses instead of one-third, thereby inflating the multiplier. It is further contended that the amount awarded under the head “loss of estate” is on the higher side and requires reduction.

5.Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent:

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal, in fact, erred in not granting adequate amount for future prospects. It is contended that since the deceased was employed as a Head Constable, the addition