ORDER N.W. Sambre, J. - In claim petition No.306 of 2009 the Tribunal awarded compensation in response to the claim brought under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the respondent/claimants. 2. On 1st of March 2009, on an highway passing through the city of Nagpur deceased was driving the Maruti 800 car bearing No.MH27H1866 which was travelling from Wardha to Nagpur. At the relevant time, the truck bearing No.MH24F8940 insured with the appellant came from wrong side and gave dash to the vehicle of the deceased from the front, as a result, the vehicle of the deceased was shatter and deceased died on the spot. 3. An offence vide Crime No.42 of 2009 under Section 279, 304A, 427 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered. 4. Since the deceased was a government servant, drawing monthly salary of Rs. 30,000/, considering his age at the time of death, compensation of Rs. 35,80,000/was claimed. 5. It is an admitted position on record that the truck in question was insured with the appellant and the appellant vide detailed statement Exh.19 raised an objection as regards status of the claimant, who claimed to be second wife of the deceased. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant in the aforesaid background, after award of compensation has urged before this Court that since it was an hidden position, it is the case of contributory negligence and it was accepted of the Tribunal to record findings on the same issue by reducing the amount of compensation qua the role attributed to thee driver, who was driving the truck in question. According to him the appellant as such should have been directed to pay at the most 50% of the compensation amount. The learned counsel for the appellant, who draw support from the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd v. Meena Tukaram Jadhav and ors. reported in 2014 (3) Mh.L.J page 840 and another judgment of Apex court in the matter of T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan and others reported in 2008 (3) T.A.C.193 (S.C). 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant would assist this Court by bringing it to the notice that it was never a plea raised by the appellant before the Tribunal and for the first time the plea of contributory negligence is sought to be canvased before this Court. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant would assist this Court by bringing it to the notice that it was never a plea raised by the appellant before the Tribunal and for the first time the plea of contributory negligence is sought to be canvased before this Court. He would then urge that in the cross-examination of the claimant the present appellant were enable to extract anything so as to demonstrate that the deceased has contributed in the happening of the accident in question and as such the liability to pay compensation needs to be proportionately reduced. He would also try to differentiate the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant on facts. 8. Considered the rival submissions. 9. The occurrence of the accident in question, the ownership and insurance of the respective vehicles is not an issue under dispute. This Court is required to consider as to whether the appellant were able to discharge there burden so as to establish a case of contributory negligence. 10. Admittedly, the appellant has not examined any witness in support of their claim of contributory negligence. As such, the case of the appellant is required to be considered in the light of the other oral and documentary evidence available on record. The claimant, who has examined the claimant no.l at Exh.39 though has entered into the witness box, in cross-examination the present appellant/original respondent were unable to establish their case of contributory negligence. The other documents which were produced on record, particularly the investigation papers in crime No.42 of 2009 are also not supporting the case of the present appellant particularly when it could be inferred from the record that the truck which was insured with the present appellant and was driven from wrong side resulting into the accident in question. 11. Apart from above, in the judgments which were relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is true that the evidence of the claimant insurance company was able to establish a case of contributory negligence which is conspicuously absent in the case in hand. 12. That being so, upon giving the review to the entire gamut of the matter, I hardly notice any infirmity or illegality so as to show indulgence at the behest of appellant insurance company by recording finding of contributory negligence. 12. That being so, upon giving the review to the entire gamut of the matter, I hardly notice any infirmity or illegality so as to show indulgence at the behest of appellant insurance company by recording finding of contributory negligence. That being so, the appeal lacks merits, as such stands dismissed.