SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants against the award dated 12.11.2011 passed in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants was allowed and respondents were held liable to pay compensation, jointly and severally. The award is challenged on the ground that contributory negligence was wrongly attributed at the ratio of 50% upon deceased-Karamjit Singh and 50% upon respondent No.2-driver of the offending vehicle and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which is on the lower side.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

3. Learned counsel for the appellants–claimants contends that the learned Tribunal has committed error in law and on facts in holding that the accident in question occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of both the deceased-Karamjit Singh and respondent No.2-driver of the offending vehicle. He contends that the said finding is perverse, arbitrary, and not borne out from the evidence available on record.

4. He further contends that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of compensation, as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company contends as under:-

i. That the learned Tribunal has erred in fastening liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company despite the fact that the owner of the offending vehicle did not possess the valid route permit to ply the offending vehicle.

ii. That deviation from prescribed route as per the permit granted by the Transport Authority is violation of the terms of insurance policy, therefore, the liability to pay compensation be affixed on owner and driver of the offending vehicle and he filed separate appeal i.e. FAO-1645-2012, titled as “National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Manjit Kaur and others”, challenging the award. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole case file with their able assistance.

8. A careful perusal of the award reveals that the conclusion regarding contributory negligence is wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law and contrary to the evidence available on record. The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence in its proper perspective and has erroneously attributed 50% contributory negligence to the deceased.

9. The entire reasoning of the learned Tribunal proceeds on conjectures and surmises rather than on legally admissible evidence. Merely because the motorcycle had struck against the stationary truck, the learned Tribunal presumed that the deceased was driving the motorcycle at a high speed and in a rash manner. There is, however, no cogent evidence on record to establish either excessive speed or rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased. The finding that “had the motorcycle been driven at a nominal speed, the impact would not have been fatal” is based purely on assumption and not on any substantive evidence.

10. On the contrary, the factual position emerging from the record is that the offending truck was parked on the road during night hours without any parking lights, indicators or warning signals. Even as per the reasoning adopted by the learned Tribunal itself, the truck ha