- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. This F.A.F.O. has been filed challenging the award dated 16.2.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Pilibhit in M.A.C.P. No. 5 of 2003 between Mehmood and others v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others. By the impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 60,500/- as compensation to the appellant with 6% annual interest. Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have also been directed to prepare a cheque of amount in favour of the Tribunal for deposit of the same within three months from the date of award. It is provided in the order that in case of default, respondents No. 1 and 2 would be liable to pay 9% interest on the amount awarded and that claimant No. 3, Km. Tavassum, would be entitled to 1/4th part of the amount, whereas the remaining amount would be paid equally between respondents No. 1 and 2.
(2.) Sri B.N. Agrawal holding brief of Sri Sanjai Agarwal, has argued that the Tribunal has misread the statement of P.W. 2 and has wrongly held that the deceased equally contributed towards the accident. Thus, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse; that the Tribunal has also committed an illegality in holding the income of the deceased as Rs. 1,500/- per month though there was sufficient evidence on record that he was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. It is stated that the deceased was driving his motorcycle on his left side and he did not contribute to any extent in the occurrence of the accident. He further submits that the Tribunal has not only erred in awarding very low compensation towards mental pain, agony and grief caused, but has also not awarded compensation towards medical expenses which was incurred during the treatment of the deceased and his future prospects.
(3.) On perusal of record, we find that the appellant has neither filed site-plan before us nor the alleged statement of P.W. 2. As regards, 50% contributory negligence is concerned, the Tribunal has decided this question of fact by issue No. 5 concluding that there was contributory negligence of the deceased also as he was not driving the motor cycle cautiously.;