JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, C.J. - On 30th March, 2012, one Subrata Dey was coming towards Agartala from Kamalpur in his Maruti Zen car bearing registration No.TR-01-Q-0479. On the Kamalpur-Ambassa road, the said car met with an accident, as a result of which, he sustained injuries and expired. The alleged cause of accident being fault of the driver of vehicle bearing registration No.TR-04-2158 (Commander Jeep) who negligently stopped the vehicle without signaling and as a result thereof, the Maruti Zen car, driven behind, rammed into the Commander Jeep. The incident was witnessed by passersby namely, Atul Das and Nitya Gopal Rudrapaul who reported the incident to the police. 2. The legal heirs of deceased filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 14,09,000/-. In the claim petition, the fault alleged was purely that of driver of the Commander Jeep. However, owner of the said vehicle, in his response to the petition, while denying the fault of his driver, attributed fault and negligence of the deceased who was on the wheels of Maruti Car. The insurer, on this aspect, remained silent and vaguely denied the averments made in the claim petition. 3. It appears that at the time of framing of issues, parties did not seriously dispute the factum of negligence of the deceased for the parties agreed to framing of the following two issues : " 1. Did Subrata Deb sustain any injury on 30.03.2012 at about 01-15 p.m. near Salema Market on Agartala to Kamalpur road under Salema Police Station in a road traffic accident involving the Commander Jeep bearing registration No.TR-04-2158 and Maruti Zen Car bearing registration No.TR01-Q-0479 due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No.TR-04-2158 resulting in his death the dame day. 2. Are the claimants entitle to be compensated under the provision of M.V Act? If so, to what extent and who shall be liable to pay the same." 4. While answering issue No.1, Tribunal observed that driver of Commander Jeep was driving the vehicle at a high speed and since he suddenly stopped the vehicle, Maruti Zen car driven behind by the deceased dashed into the Commander Jeep, "perhaps due to fault of the steering". As a result thereof, deceased sustained injuries. While answering issue No.1, Tribunal observed that driver of Commander Jeep was driving the vehicle at a high speed and since he suddenly stopped the vehicle, Maruti Zen car driven behind by the deceased dashed into the Commander Jeep, "perhaps due to fault of the steering". As a result thereof, deceased sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that even though driver of the Commander Jeep suddenly stopped the vehicle on the highway, yet the fault was also that of the deceased, for he was driving the vehicle at a "high speed" and "could not control the speed of the vehicle" or "could not bypass the vehicle" for the "fault of the steering". This, according to the learned Judge, was the nature in which the incident occurred and thus fault being that of both the drivers, claimants would be entitled to only 50% of the amount of compensation so determined as a result of contributory negligence of the deceased. 5. While deciding issue No.2, the Tribunal found the claimants entitled to a sum of Rs. 7,92,000/- less 50% thereof i.e. Rs. 3,96,000/- towards loss of income plus Rs. 50,000/-towards loss of consortium plus Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus totaling to a sum of Rs. 4,71,000/-. Since the vehicle i.e. Commander Jeep was insured and there was no breach of the terms of the insurance policy, such liability stands fastened upon the insurer namely Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent No.2). 6. It is not in dispute that the insurer as also the owner and the driver of the Commander Jeep have accepted the award and findings returned thereby. It is the claimant who lays challenge, limited to the extent of contributory negligence. 7. Having perused the record, this Court is of the considered view that observations made and findings returned by the Tribunal, with regard to the contributory negligence of the deceased are purely presumptuous and based on conjectures. There is no evidence whatsoever on record exhibiting the manner in which the Tribunal formed its conclusion, narrating occurrence of the accident. There is no evidence on record indicating that "prior to the accident there was any fault of the steering" or that "the deceased could not control the vehicle" for it to have been "driven at a high speed". There is no evidence whatsoever on record exhibiting the manner in which the Tribunal formed its conclusion, narrating occurrence of the accident. There is no evidence on record indicating that "prior to the accident there was any fault of the steering" or that "the deceased could not control the vehicle" for it to have been "driven at a high speed". Also there is no witness who has deposed that as a result of high speed, deceased could not control-bypass the vehicle in the front and that too on account of fault in the steering. 8. The issue framed is specific. Parties led evidence only to establish the fault and negligence of the driver of one vehicle, i.e. Commander Jeep. 9. Not only that, P.W.1 namely, Smt. Sikha Deb (Roy) in her deposition categorically denied any fault of her husband. 10. In fact, spot witnesses namely, Nitya Gopal Rudra Paul (P.W.2) and Shri Atul Das (P.W.3) have narrated occurrence of the incident, attributing fault purely and solely to be that of the driver of Commander Jeep. They do state that the offending vehicle i.e. the Commander Jeep was proceedings towards Agartala via Teliamura through Ambassa-Kamalpur road and Maruti Zen car was being driven behind the said vehicle. They were standing on the roadside. The driver of the Commander Jeep suddenly stopped the vehicle. This he did without signaling or switching on the indicator of the vehicle. As a result thereof, Maruti Zen car dashed into the rear side of the Commander Jeep. Specifically they deposed that the incident took place due to rash and negligent acts of the driver of Commander Jeep and there was no fault of the driver of Maruti Zen car. Significantly, on this aspect, the insurer and the owner have not cross-examined these witnesses. Their statements go unrebutted and uncontroverted. 11. It is a matter of record that driver of the vehicle of Commander Jeep did not step into the witness box but the owner who deposed as Shri Binode Debnath (O.P.W-1) is not a spot witness and even from his statement it cannot be inferred that fault, if any, was that of the deceased. He reached the spot after about one hour of occurrence of the incident. It is seen that in the FIR (Exhibit-1), fault attributable is only that of the driver of Commander Jeep. 12. He reached the spot after about one hour of occurrence of the incident. It is seen that in the FIR (Exhibit-1), fault attributable is only that of the driver of Commander Jeep. 12. What is contributory negligence stands explained by Hon'ble the Apex Court in T.O. Anthony vs. Karvarnan and others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 748 and reiterated in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another vs. K. Hemlatha and others reported in (2008) 6 SCC 767 and in Pawan Kumar and another vs. Harkishan Dass Mohan Lal and others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 590 . Lastly in Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & others reported in (2015) 9 SCC 273 the Apex Court observed as under : "It is a case of composite negligence where injuries have been caused to the claimants by combined wrongful act of joint tort feasors. In a case of accident caused by negligence of joint tort feasors, all the persons who aid or counsel or direct or join in committal of a wrongful act, are liable. In such case, the liability is always joint and several. The extent of negligence of joint tort feasors in such a case is immaterial for satisfaction of the claim of the plaintiff/claimant and need not be determined by the court. However, in case all the joint tort feasors are before the court, it may determine the extent of their liability for the purpose of adjusting inter-se equities between them at an appropriate stage. The liability of each and every joint tort feasor vis a vis to plaintiff/claimant cannot be bifurcated as it is joint and several liability. In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between tort feasors for making payment to the plaintiff is not permissible as the plaintiff/claimant has the right to recover the entire amount from the easiest targets/solvent defendant." 13. Having considered the law when applied to the instant facts, this Court has no hesitation in holding that findings returned by the Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence are absolutely perverse, not based on correct and complete appreciation of materials placed on record and evidence led by the parties. In fact, such findings are placed on no evidence and are merely presumptuous in nature. 14. In fact, such findings are placed on no evidence and are merely presumptuous in nature. 14. As such, findings on issue Nos.1 & 2 are reversed holding fault to be purely that of driver of the offending vehicle (Commander Jeep), entitling the claimants to the entire amount of compensation of Rs. 7,92,000/- towards loss of income. 15. However, towards loss of consortium, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , claimants are held entitled to Rs. 40,000/- instead of Rs. 50,000/which amount shall be payable only to the wife of the deceased. 16. Towards funeral expenses, the amount also needs to be reduced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- as it is not disputed that such expense was actually incurred by the claimants for performing the last rites of the deceased. 17. In view the aforesaid discussion, appeal is allowed and the impugned award dated 30th May, 2017 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. Title Suit (MAC) 319 of 2013, titled as Smti. Sikha Deb (Roy) and another vs. Shri Binode Debnath and others, stands modified accordingly, to the extent that the claimants shall be entitled to compensation of an amount of (Rs. 7,92,000 + Rs. 40,000 + Rs. 15,000) = Rs. 8,47,000/- instead of Rs. 4,71,000/-, which the insurer namely, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent No.2) shall pay to the claimants along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. Any amount already paid shall be adjusted accordingly. 18. The instant appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Send down the lower Court records forthwith.