JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the award as also the papers filed along with memo of appeal. The appellant has challenged the award dated 8th May, 2012 passed by M.A.C.T., Court No. 1, Bareilly in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1014 of 2009 whereby a sum of Rs. 2,20,500 have been awarded to the claimants (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) on account of the death of their unmarried son in the instant motor accident. 2. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the accident took place on account of contributory negligence because the deceased himself was crossing the road negligently. It has been further submitted that the driver of the motorcycle has not been arrayed in the petition and at the most right to recovery should have been given to the appellant on account of contributory negligence of the deceased. 3. It appears that on 18th November, 2009 at about 7.00 p.m. the appellant was waiting for a conveyance by the side of the road and the driver of the motorcycle came from opposite side direction driving the vehicle rashly and negligently dashed with the deceased who later on died. The issue regarding contributory negligence was not framed before the Tribunal and no prayer was made on behalf of the appellant for framing issue on this point. The driver of the motorcycle was not examined by owner or by the appellant. The appellant could have summoned the driver of the offending motorcycle to substantiate their plea of contributory negligence. Learned Counsel for the appellant has tried to urge that there was contradiction in the testimony of witnesses examined by the claimants. P.Ws.-2 and 3 have stated the registration number of the motorcycle in their examination-in-chief. The only contradiction appears to be that according to Kailash Chandra (P.W.-3) and Jeveshwar Kumar (P.W.-2) have taken the deceased in injured condition to Arya Hospital and thereafter to Jeevan Dhara Hospital and then to District Hospital where he was declared dead while Jeveshwar Kumar (P.W.-2) has stated that the police had taken the injured to Arya Hospital. 4. In our opinion this contradiction is not sufficient to discard the entire testimony of the witnesses who have allegedly seen the accident. 'Falsus in Uno., Falsus in Omnibus' principle is not applicable in India. 5. 4. In our opinion this contradiction is not sufficient to discard the entire testimony of the witnesses who have allegedly seen the accident. 'Falsus in Uno., Falsus in Omnibus' principle is not applicable in India. 5. The testimony of the witness is considered as a whole and it is not proper to pickup a sentence from here or there. The owner of the vehicle has admitted the accident but has charged the deceased for his own negligence. As stated earlier none of opposite party before the Tribunal made any attempt to examine the driver of the offending motorcycle. Thus, we find that findings of Tribunal on issue No. 1 regarding negligence of the driver of motorcycle U.P. 25 B-1802 are not at all perverse or illegal. These findings are based on evidence available on record. 6. Admittedly, the driver of the motorcycle had a valid driving licence on the date of accident and the vehicle was insured with the appellant, so no question of giving recovery rights to the appellant arises. If for the sake or arguments the contention of the Counsel for the appellant is accepted regarding contributory negligence, even then right of recovery of the amount of compensation cannot be given to the insurer because in that event no amount of compensation to the extent of contributory negligence of the concerned deceased was payable at all to the claimants. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not assailed the quantum of compensation before us. In view of the above, we do not find any valid reason in this appeal, the appeal is accordingly dismissed at admission stage. The statutory amount deposited in the Court be remitted back to the Tribunal concerned within two weeks.