- (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellantsclaimants against the judgment and award dated 22.03.2012 passed by learned 5th District Judge cum Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Hazaribag in connection with Claim Case No.127 of 2006.
(2.) The claimants have filed present appeal mainly on the ground that the learned Tribunal has wrongly held the deceased partly liable for the accident. As a matter of fact, the respondents never adduced any evidence before the Tribunal that the deceased was driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently and he was also liable for contributory negligence. Only because the deceased was driving motorcycle at the relevant point of time, without cogent evidence being brought on record, he could not have been held liable for contributory negligence and for that deduction of 50% from the total compensation, as done by the Tribunal, is a wrong finding which is not sustainable in the eye of law. The appellant has also relied on the judgment in (Meera Devi & Another Vrs. H.R.T.C. & Others, 2014 AIR(SCW) 1709) in which in paras 9, 10 and 11 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "9. It is not in dispute that the deceased was the only son of his parents, i.e., the appellants herein. It is also not in dispute that when the collusion between the scooter and the bus took place on the fateful day at a place known as Nabahi, the deceased was driving scooter on his left side towards Sarkaghat from Mandi side. Admittedly, the site where there was a curve, the bus driver did not blow the horn and the bus was being driven at a very high speed. All this is corroborated from the testimony of PW3 Lekh Ram, who is stated to be an eye witness to the accident and not related to the deceased scooterist. 10. To prove the contributory negligence, there must be cogent evidence. In the instant case, there is no specific evidence to prove that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased scooterist. In the absence of any cogent evidence to prove the plea of contributory negligence, the said doctrine of common law cannot be applied in the present case. We are, thus, of the view that the reasoning given by the High Court has no basis and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. In view of above, we allow the appeal. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 27.03.2006 is set aside and the award of the Tribunal dated 01.07.2013 is upheld, with no orders as to costs." It is further submitted that no interest on the awarded amount has been directed to be paid. The learned Tribunal has held that the parties were not attentive to get the matter disposed of within a reasonable time but the Tribunal has not held as to who is mainly responsible for the delay in disposal, what was the reason or what was the stage during which the parties were negligent in proceeding with the trial expeditiously. The Tribunal should have directed that interest at least from the date of framing of the issues should have been paid.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondentinsurance company has opposed the argument and submitted that the Tribunal has assigned reasoning for holding the deceased liable for contributory negligence. There was curve at the place of occurrence and even after seeing the dumpher coming, the deceased did not stop his motorcycle and that contributed the occurrence. So far payment of interest is concerned, the Tribunal has held both the parties liable for causing delay in disposal of the case.;