- (1.) The instant appeal is directed against the award dated 28.4.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Special Judge, Decoity Affected Area, Dholpur, in Claim Case No.172/2013.
(2.) Brief facts noticed on perusal of the impugned award are that on 27.3.2013 at about 4:00 P.M. the motorcycle bearing registration no.RJ 11SC 9926, on which deceased Munna was sitting, collided with another motorcycle bearing registration no.RJ 11SB 4900 near the brick factory on the way from village Aligarh to Badi, as a result of which Munna died at the spot and Makhan, who was sitting on the other motorcycle, received injuries to which he succumbed during his treatment in the hospital. FIR No.98/2013 came to be lodged at Police Station Kanchanpur (Dholpur). Dependants of both the deceased persons filed separate claim petitions, which were decided by the Tribunal vide the common impugned award granting compensation of Rs.9,01,400/- to the dependants of deceased Munna, respondents herein. Hence this appeal by the Insurance Company.
(3.) Counsel for the appellant, inter alia, contended that the impugned award is illegal, unjust and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, and that the learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the point of contributory negligence. Counsel for the appellant contended that there was head on collision between the motorcycles which is insured with the appellant Company and another motorcycle on which deceased Munna was travelling and, therefore, contended that when there was a head on collision of two motorcycles, to hold the appellant Insurance Company liable for the entire amount, is unjustified and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The finding ought to have been that drivers of both the vehicles should have been held equally responsible. Even the roznamcha report and other material proved that since there was a head on collision, therefore, negligence of the deceased was also there and at least 50% deserves to be reduced on account of contributory negligence. Even the FIR comes to the same conclusion and thus, contended that the claim is unjust and the order is perverse. He also contended that the amount allowed at Rs.9,01,400/- is highly excessive and unreasonable, and there was no justification for an amount which has been allowed to the extent of Rs.9,01,400/-. There was no basis for assuming salary of Rs.200/- per day and there was no evidence of even earning of any income placed on record by the claimants, and even there was no material about age of the deceased. Therefore, the claim allowed is highly excessive and unjust.;