JUDGMENT : A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. This Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal holding that the accident had occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving on the part of R.W.1, driver of the vehicle belongs to the 6th respondent herein, insured with the appellant herein and directing the appellant to pay compensation to the respondents/petitioners 1 to 5. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the M.C.O.P.No.2 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri (Principal Sub-Judge, Dharmapuri) is that while on 11.08.2010 at about 7.05 p.m., the deceased, who is the husband of the first respondent and the father of the respondent 2 to 4 and son of the 5th respondent, was returning to his home by riding his motor cycle bearing registration No. TN 29 AZ 5788, nearby PMP College Junction Road in Salem to Krishnagiri Road, an Indica Car bearing registration No.TN 28 AB 5271 belonging to the 6th respondent and insured with the appellant was coming from Salem to Krishnagiri, and it was driven in a rash and negligent manner and without raising any horn dashed against the motor cycle, as a result of which the deceased was thrown out of the motor cycle and sustained fatal injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Manipal Hospital, Salem and admitted as inpatient on 11.08.2010 and inspite of the treatment given to him, he died in the hospital on 23.08.2010. According to the respondents 1 to 5, the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 43 years and he was working as BT Assistant and was earning Rs.24,939/- per month. The respondents 1 to 5 claimed Rs.59,85,000/- on various heads and restricted to Rs.50,00,000/- towards compensation on various heads. The 6th respondent who is the owner of the vehicle and the appellant who is the insurer of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the respondents 1 to 5. 3. The respondents 1 to 5 claimed Rs.59,85,000/- on various heads and restricted to Rs.50,00,000/- towards compensation on various heads. The 6th respondent who is the owner of the vehicle and the appellant who is the insurer of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the respondents 1 to 5. 3. Opposing the claim of the respondents 1 to 5 before the Tribunal, the appellant had filed a counter statement inter alia contending that the allegations in the claim petition are false and that the driver of the Indica Car TN 28 AB 5271 did not drive the same either rashly or negligently and that on the other hand, the deceased only came in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly crossed the road and hit against the car and thus he himself got involved in the accident. The driver of the car had no valid licence to drive the car at the time of accident. The deceased had no valid licence to drive the motor cycle at the time of accident. Hence the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents 1 to 5. The appellant denied the income and occupation of the deceased and submitted that the claim amount is highly excessive and exorbitant. The owner and insurance company of the motor cycle are necessary parties and the claim petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence the appellant-insurance company prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claim petitioners, three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked 16 documents as Ex.P1 to P16. On the side of the appellant, the driver of the car was examined as R.W.1 and one document was marked as Ex.R1. 5. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has awarded compensation of Rs.40,55,617/- with accrued interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization and directed the appellant to pay the compensation to the respondents 1 to 5 on behalf of the 6th respondent. The learned Tribunal has also made apportionment Rs.20,00,000/- to the first respondent with accrued interest thereon and Rs.6,00,000/- with accrued interest thereon each to the respondents 2 to 4 and Rs.2,55,617/- with accrued interest thereon to the 5th respondent. The learned Tribunal has also made apportionment Rs.20,00,000/- to the first respondent with accrued interest thereon and Rs.6,00,000/- with accrued interest thereon each to the respondents 2 to 4 and Rs.2,55,617/- with accrued interest thereon to the 5th respondent. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the appellant has filed this appeal. 6. The counsel for the Appellant vehemently contended that it was the deceased the rider of the two-wheeler who was guilty of negligence and due to his negligence act only the accident had occurred. But, the tribunal erred in taking note of the deposition of the wife of the deceased who has been examined as P.W.1 and relying on the complaint by her when she is not an eye witness to the occurrence. It was also further contended that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the evidence of R.W.1 and the rough sketch Ex.R1 marked through him which clearly speaks of the negligence of the deceased and that if it had been properly considered the tribunal would have arrived at a just decision with regard to the contributory negligence of the deceased in respect of the accident and would have passed the reasonable award. 7. It is seen that R.W.1 during chief-examination has deposed that:- “xxx xxx ” During cross-examination R.W.1 has deposed as follows:- “xxx xxx” 8. We have gone through the evidence of R.W.1 and also the Rough Sketch Ex.R1 marked on the side of the appellant/respondent before the Tribunal. It is seen that the driver of the insured vehicle who has been examined as R.W.1 in his evidence has stated that he was plying on the Highway from Salem to Krishnagiri and it is the case of R.W.1 that at around 6.30 to 7.00 p.m., on 11.10.2008, while he was proceeding on the left side, the deceased riding two wheeler had all of a sudden got into the Highway and because of that the accident had occurred. On perusal of the Ex.R1 Rough Sketch, it is seen that it is a broad road and no obstruction was found in the road that blocked the proper view of the driver of the insured vehicle. It is not the case of the driver of the insured vehicle that the two-wheeler had entered into the broad road from a place where there was no visibility. It is not the case of the driver of the insured vehicle that the two-wheeler had entered into the broad road from a place where there was no visibility. Taking into consideration the evidence of R.W.1 and Ex.R1-rough sketch though it is seen that the driver of the insured vehicle was driving on the Highway and that the deceased has entered from the side road, we feel that the driver of the insured vehicle should have also exercised caution while driving on the Highway and thereby negligence cannot be fixed entirely on the rider of the two-wheeler/deceased. However, in the above situation we feel that the rider of the two-wheeler had also contributed to some extent to the cause of the accident by suddenly entering the Highway. 9. It is now well settled that in a case of contributory negligence courts have power to apportion the loss between the parties as it seems just and equitable. The apportionment in that context means that damages were reduced to such an extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claim shared in the responsibility for the accident and damage. Taking into consideration the facts on hand we feel contributory negligence on the part of the deceased can be fixed to some extent and thereby some deduction could be made in the Award passed. Hence, deduction of 10% towards contributory negligence would be just and reasonable. 10. In the result, this Appeal is partly allowed. The compensation of Rs.40,55,617/- awarded by the Tribunal is modified as Rs.39,49,538/- after deducting a sum of Rs.4,38,837/- towards 10% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in the following manner:- Monthly income of the deceased Rs. 23,598/- Annual income of the deceased Rs. 2,83,176/- Annual income after deduction of tax Rs. 2,70,859/- 30% further prosperity of income Rs. 81,257/- Gross annual income Rs. 3,52,116/- 1/4th deduction for personal expenses Rs. 2,64,087/- Loss of income = 2,64,089 x 14 Rs.36,97,218/- Medical expenses Rs. 4,41,857/- Transportation expenses Rs. 8,300/- Article damages Rs. 3,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 20,000/- Loss of Consortium-wife Rs. 50,000/- Love and affection Rs. 1,50,000/- Attender expenses Rs. 6,000/- Loss of pain & suffering Rs. 12,000/- Total Rs.43,88,375/- 10% deduction towards contributory Negligence on the part of the deceased: Rs. 4,38,837/- Amount of Compensation payable Rs.39,49,538/- 10% deduction towards contributory Negligence on the part of the deceased: Rs. 3,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 20,000/- Loss of Consortium-wife Rs. 50,000/- Love and affection Rs. 1,50,000/- Attender expenses Rs. 6,000/- Loss of pain & suffering Rs. 12,000/- Total Rs.43,88,375/- 10% deduction towards contributory Negligence on the part of the deceased: Rs. 4,38,837/- Amount of Compensation payable Rs.39,49,538/- 10% deduction towards contributory Negligence on the part of the deceased: Rs. 4,38,837/- Amount of Compensation payable Rs.39,49,538/- The appellant is directed to pay compensation of Rs.39,49,538/- to the respondents 1 to 5 on behalf of the 6th respondent, with accrued interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. It is made clear that the deduction will be made as per the apportionment of compensation made by the Tribunal.