JUDGMENT : The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited has preferred this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 7th July 2015 made in MVC No.345/2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Holalkere (for short `Tribunal’), fastening the liability on the insurer to compensate the claimants. 2. Respondents No.1 to 4 herein filed a claim petition contending that on 26.6.2013, while the husband of 1st claimant and father of claimants No.2 to 4 namely Alkurappa was crossing NH4 road to approach the hotel near Ganesha Temple, Burujanaroppa village, Hiriyur Taluk, a Maruthi Alto car bearing registration No.KA26/M4312 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations, dashed against the said Alkurappa. Due to the impact, he sustained grievous injuries to the vital parts of the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Chitradurga. Later, he was shifted to C G Hospital, Davanagere. However, he succumbed to the injuries three days after the accident i.e. on 29.6.2013 at about 4.30 p.m. In the claim petition, it was contended that they had spent more than Rs.50,000/towards treatment and funeral expenses. Prior to the accident, the deceased was doing agricultural work and earning Rs.10,000/per month. In view of the death of the deceased, the family has lost the bread earner and sought for compensation of Rs.34,00,000/ 3. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the owner and the insurer respondents No.1 and 2 entered appearance. The 1st respondent filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also denied the rash and negligent driving of the offending Maruthi Car. Due to negligence on the part of the deceased, while he was crossing busy national highway at Hiriyur, without observing the on going vehicles, the accident had occurred and sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against the 1st respondent owner. 4. The 2nd respondent – Insurance Company filed written statement contending that due to negligence on the part of the deceased while he was crossing the busy national highway, the accident had occurred. Further, the driver of Maruthi car was not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition against the 2nd respondent. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. Further, the driver of Maruthi car was not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition against the 2nd respondent. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. Claimants in order to prove their case, the 1st claimant got examined herself as PW1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P7. On behalf of the Insurance Company, one of the officials was examined as RW1 and the insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1. 6. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration the spot mahazar, IMV report, copy of the complaint and chargesheet, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Maruthi car. Hence, claimants are entitled for compensation. 7. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned, taking into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs.6,500/per month, deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, since the deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of accident, applying the multiplier `11’, awarded a sum of Rs.5,71,956/towards `loss of dependency’, Rs.25,000/towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/towards `transportation of dead body’, Rs.1,00,000/towards `loss of consortium’, Rs.25,000/towards `loss of estate’ , Rs.25,992/towards `future prospectus’ and Rs.1,00,000/towards `loss of love and affection’. In all Rs.8,57,948/has been awarded with interest at 8% p.a. Since the insurance policy of the offending Maruthi car was inforce as on the date of accident, the liability has been fastened on the Insurance Company to compensate the claimants. The Insurance Company being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and also the liability fastened on them to compensate the claimants has filed this appeal. 8. Sri Ashok N Patil, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant Insurer contended that the deceased, suddenly crossed the road on busy NH4 road, without following the traffic rules and observing the movements of vehicles. Hence, the accident had occurred due to negligence of the deceased. As per National Highway Rules, where there is zebra crossing and subway, a pedestrian is supposed to cross the national highway. In the instant case, the deceased after crossing the barricade had crossed the busy national highway. In the national highways, the drivers have to maintain the minimum speed of 80 90 k.m. per hour. The deceased had also contributed to the accident. In the instant case, the deceased after crossing the barricade had crossed the busy national highway. In the national highways, the drivers have to maintain the minimum speed of 80 90 k.m. per hour. The deceased had also contributed to the accident. Hence, fastening the liability on the Insurance Company is contrary to law. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments reported in ILR 2003 KAR 1104 in the case of Koosappa Poojari Vs. K Sadabba and others and ILR 1998 KAR 1934 in the case of Sri Narasimhaiah –vs the General Manager & Another. Further, learned Advocate contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and sought for modification of the judgment and award. 9. On the other hand, Sri Madhukar Nadig, learned Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and contended that it is the duty of the driver of the vehicle to verify whether any person is crossing the road, he must take sufficient care to avoid accident. In the instant case, when the deceased was crossing NH4 near Ganesha Temple, without seeing the pedestrian, the driver of Maruthi car dashed against the deceased. The family has lost the bread earner. The Tribunal taking into consideration the earning of the deceased and loss of love and affection of the wife and children awarded just and reasonable compensation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 10. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused oral and documentary evidence and the judgment and award. 11. After hearing the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are: (a) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is in accordance with law? (b) Whether the Tribunal is justified in attributing 100% negligence on the part of the driver of Maruthi Alto Car? 12. The defence of the Insurance Company is that a specific provision has been made for pedestrian to cross the national highway at Hiriyur where the accident had been occurred. Further, the deceased was negligently crossing the barricade putup on both sides of the road and cross National Highway. As such, the deceased had also contributed to some extent for the accident. Further, the deceased was negligently crossing the barricade putup on both sides of the road and cross National Highway. As such, the deceased had also contributed to some extent for the accident. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law. The records clearly disclose that NH4 is busy road. The subways and skywalks have been made in Hiriyur taluk to enable the pedestrians to cross the highway at the specific point. The deceased was not supposed to cross NH4 where there was no zebra crossing and signal. If a pedestrian suddenly crosses the road, it will affect free flow of vehicular movements on the highways. Hence, it is appropriate to assess contributory negligence on the part of the deceased to an extent of 20%. In view of the dictum laid down in the case of Koosappa Poojari referred to above, fastening the liability to an extent of 25% is not proper. In the said case, the accident had occurred in the middle of the road. In the instant case, the accident had occurred not in the middle road. Hence, it is appropriate to fasten 20% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, instead of 25%. 13. As regards quantum of compensation, the Tribunal having regard to the avocation and income of the deceased, number of dependants has rightly quantified the compensation payable to the claimants. This Court do not find any good grounds to interfere with the same. However, in view of the finding on point No.2, 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal shall be deducted, as there was a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 7th July 2015 made in MVC No.345/2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Holalkere is modified, apportioning contributory negligence on the part of the deceased at 20%. Claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.6,86,358/as against Rs.8,57,948/(8,57,948/20% = 6,86,358/). However, the impugned judgment and award, insofar as it relates to rate of interest, apportionment and deposit is concerned, shall remain unaltered. The amount in deposit made before this Court is ordered to be transmitted to the MACT, Holalkere for disbursement.