JUDGMENT : Aravind Kumar, J. 1. Though the matter is listed for hearing on interlocutory application, we have taken up this appeal for final disposal since both the learned Advocates appearing for parties have consented for same and also on account of records from the jurisdictional Tribunal having been secured. 2. Insurer has preferred this appeal challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment and award passed in MVC No.542/2015 by III Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada dated 16.11.2016 whereunder claim petition filed by respondents 1 to 4 namely, parents, wife and son of the deceased came to be allowed in part by awarding a total compensation of Rs. 16,42,500/- with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of petition till realization and fastening the liability on the appellant herein. 3. Respondents-1 to 4 herein filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 alleging that deceased Sri Mohammad Mansoor Saqafi was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-19-Y-7083 on 09.08.2013 at about 3.15 p.m. from Mangaluru to B.C.Road and near Farangipete, N.H.75, driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-31-5033 who had parked the same on the side of the road had suddenly moved the said vehicle without the signal and due to the same, rider of the motor cycle dashed to the side door portion of the lorry resulting in rider of the motor cycle sustaining grievous injuries and on being shifted to hospital, he was declared as having been brought dead. Hence, seeking compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs, claim petition came to be filed. 4. On service of notice, the insurer appeared and filed written statement denying the averments made in the petition except to the extent expressly admitted thereunder. It was also specifically contended that said vehicle was parked on the side of the mud road by switching on the parking light and the deceased drove his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side and dashed to the parked lorry. Hence, it was contended that accident was entirely due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of the deceased. First respondent - owner of the offending vehicle was placed exparte on account of his non appearance despite service of notice. 5. Hence, it was contended that accident was entirely due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of the deceased. First respondent - owner of the offending vehicle was placed exparte on account of his non appearance despite service of notice. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, Tribunal framed the issues and first claimant namely, father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1, the Secretary of the Masjid where deceased was working as a teacher was examined as P.W.2 and an eye witness to the accident in question was examined as P.W.3. In all, petitioners produced 13 documents and got them marked as Exs.P-1 to P-13. Though second respondent - insurer did not tender any oral evidence, by consent, insurance policy relating to the offending vehicle was got marked as Ex.R-1. Tribunal on evaluating the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the parties, has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 32,85,000/- under the following heads: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Loss of dependency 30,60,000/- 2 Loss of consortium 1,00,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection 1,00,000/- 4 Funeral and obsequies expenses and transportation of dead body, etc. 25,000/- TOTAL 32,85,000/- 6. On account of finding on issue No.1 relating to negligence having been held by the Tribunal that accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent act of the deceased as well as the driver of lorry namely, the offending vehicle, arrived at a conclusion that both are equally responsible in causing the accident and as such, compensation amount came to be reduced to 50%. In other words, it was held by the Tribunal that insurer (appellant) of the offending vehicle was liable to indemnify the award to an extent of 50% i.e., Rs. 16,42,500/-. Assailing the said judgment and award, insurer is in appeal. 7. We have heard the arguments of Smt.Harini Shivanand, learned Advocate appearing for appellant and Sri G.Ravishankar Shastry, learned Advocate appearing for claimants-respondents-1 to 4. Respondent-5 is served and unrepresented. 8. 16,42,500/-. Assailing the said judgment and award, insurer is in appeal. 7. We have heard the arguments of Smt.Harini Shivanand, learned Advocate appearing for appellant and Sri G.Ravishankar Shastry, learned Advocate appearing for claimants-respondents-1 to 4. Respondent-5 is served and unrepresented. 8. It is the contention of Smt. Harini Shivanand, learned Advocate appearing for appellant that Tribunal erred in apportioning 50% negligence to the driver of the offending vehicle, inasmuch as, it erred in not considering the entire material available before it in proper perspective, since Mahazar - Ex.P-3 disclosed that lorry was parked at the edge of the road and it was the deceased who had driven his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Hence, she contends that Tribunal ought to have held negligence at 100% on the deceased and not 50%. (8.1) She would further elaborate her submission to contend that Tribunal erred in accepting the evidence of the claimants with regard to salary of the deceased when P.W.2, author of Ex.P-16 had admitted that deceased was paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month by Masjid and Rs. 10,000/- per month was paid by parents of the concerned students and there being no evidence of the parents, his (P.W.2) evidence could not have been brushed aside and income of the deceased ought to have been construed at Rs. 10,000/- per month. 9. Per contra, Sri G Ravishankar Shastry, learned Advocate appearing for respondents-1 to 4 would support the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of the records secured from the Tribunal and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions, we notice that there is no dispute with regard to the accident in question; death of Sri Mohammed Mansoor Saqafi on 09.08.2013 in the road traffic accident that occurred on the said date as well as issuance of insurance policy to the lorry bearing registration No.KA-31-5033 being valid as on the date of accident. Hence, these facts are not delved upon in this appeal since it would be repetition of facts. 11. Hence, these facts are not delved upon in this appeal since it would be repetition of facts. 11. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, we are of the considered view that following points would arise for consideration: (1) Whether Tribunal was justified in arriving at the conclusion that negligence on the part of the deceased was only 50% or it was higher than the said finding? (2) Whether compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant as contended by the appellant or it is just and reasonable?" RE: POINT NO.(1): 12. As regards the mode and manner in which accident took place, it was the contention of the insurer that lorry had been parked on the side of the mud road after switching on the parking lights. The fact remains that accident occurred at about 3.15 p.m. in a broad day light on 09.08.2013. The driver or the owner of the lorry was not examined by the insurer. It is no doubt true that jurisdictional police have filed charge sheet against rider of the motor cycle. Ex.P-8 - spot sketch would disclose that the accident in question had occurred on extreme left side of the road. Tribunal while discussing the evidence on this aspect has opined as under: "The spot sketch produced at Ex.P.8 would show that the accident in question occurred on the extreme left side of the road. The spot mahazar - Ex.P.3 shows that the accident in question has occurred on the tar road and the front and back tyres of the right side of the lorry were on the tar road. It is also evident that the charge sheet was filed against the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-19-Y- 7083. Considering all these facts and having regard to the totality of the circumstances in which the accident had taken place, I am of the opinion that there was equal negligence on the part of the deceased/rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-19-Y- 7083 and also the driver of lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-31-5033. Hence, the petitioners have partly proved that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent act of the driver of lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-31-5033 and at the same time, it can be concluded that the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA- 19-Y-7083 has also contributed equally to the accident, due to which he succumbed to the injuries." 13. Claimants have examined P.W.3 who was said to be an eye witness to the accident in question. In fact, said witness has stated in his examination-in-chief that he came to ATM located near Radha Nursing Home, Farangipete to withdraw the money after which he was returning towards Farangipete junction and saw the accident which occurred due to the parked lorry having suddenly started moving without any signal. In fact, he has stated in his cross examination that he was not even knowing the deceased and his family members and has also denied the suggestion that accident in question occurred due to the negligence of rider of the motor cycle. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the cross examination to disbelieve his testimony. In the absence of any other contra evidence being available and the insurer having failed to examine the owner or driver of the lorry in question, we are of the considered view that finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that there has been negligence in equal proportion on the part of driver of the lorry as well as rider of the motor cycle cannot be held as erroneous. In that view of the matter, contention raised by learned Advocate appearing for appellant stands rejected and accordingly, point No.(1) is answered against appellant - insurer. RE: POINT No.(2): 14. Insofar as contention with regard to, Tribunal having accepted the salary of the deceased at Rs. 20,000/- per month being erroneous, when examined in the background of the evidence that came to be tendered by the claimants before Tribunal, it would disclose that they have contended and asserted that deceased was working as an Arabic teacher at Kizar Juma Masjid Committee, Delampady, Kasargod and have produced a certificate issued by its Secretary certifying thereunder that deceased was working for the past seven years i.e., from 2006 to 2013 and his salary was Rs. 20,000/- per month which came to be marked as Ex.P-16. Secretary of said Masjid came to be examined as P.W.2 and he has reiterated the contents of Ex.P-16. However, in his cross examination, he has stated that from the Masjid, Rs. 10,000/- per month was being paid and parents of the students were paying Rs. 10,000/- per month. As rightly contended by Smt.Harini Shivanand, there is no pleading or evidence to the said effect. However, the fact remains that deceased was being paid Rs. 20,000/- per month. However, in his cross examination, he has stated that from the Masjid, Rs. 10,000/- per month was being paid and parents of the students were paying Rs. 10,000/- per month. As rightly contended by Smt.Harini Shivanand, there is no pleading or evidence to the said effect. However, the fact remains that deceased was being paid Rs. 20,000/- per month. Even if the evidence of P.W.2 is to be partially accepted, we are not inclined to disturb quantification of the compensation made by the Tribunal, inasmuch as, Tribunal has not added any amount towards 'loss of future prospects' to the income of deceased. It is also an undisputed fact that claimants being the parents, wife and son were dependent on the income of the deceased. Thus, when four persons were dependent on the income of the deceased, it cannot be held that deceased was not earning Rs. 20,000/- per month that too, in the year 2013. Hence, contention raised by learned Advocate appearing for appellant cannot be accepted and it stands rejected and accordingly, point No.(2) is answered against appellant - insurer. 15. For the reasons aforestated, we proceed to pass the following: JUDGMENT (1) Appeal is hereby dismissed. (2) Judgment and award passed in MVC No.542/2015 dated 16.11.2016 by III Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada is hereby affirmed. (3) Amount in deposit along with the original records is ordered to be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal by the Registry forthwith. (4) No order as to costs. (5) Registry is directed to draw the award accordingly.