JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is by the Insurance Company second respondent in MVC.No.507/2016 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Principal Civil Judge, Udupi (the Tribunal for short), challenging the judgment and award dated 4th July, 2018, so far as it pertains to not taking the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that, on 18.01.2016 at about 7.45 pm., at Rampura of Alevoor village, Udupi, Moodubelle Road, Udupi, the driver of the bus bearing registration No.KA-20C-5449 drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligence manner towards Udupi from Moodubelle and dashed against the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-20Y-4000, on which the deceased was proceeding towards Manipura from Udupi. As a result of the accident, the rider sustained grievous injuries on the head and died on the spot. Hence, claim petition is filed before the Tribunal. 3. In the claim petition, Respondent No.2 Insurance Company, who is appellant herein has filed its written statement and denied the allegation of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 4. The claimants in support of their case have examined PWs.1 to 3 and also got marked Exs.P1 to P8. On the other hand, respondent No.2 examined RWs.1 and 2 and also produced Learner Licence of the deceased as Ex.R1 and contend that the accident is on account of negligence on the part of the victim of the accident himself. 5. The Tribunal, after considering both the oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed the claim petition granting compensation of Rs.24,89,200/- with interest at 6% pa. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal the insurance company in this appeal contends that the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the definition of Section 2(10) of the M.V. Act and so also did not consider the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Inspite of deceased had violated the express provision of law, the Tribunal has committed an error in not taking the contributory negligence while considering the contention of the appellant. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 6. Inspite of deceased had violated the express provision of law, the Tribunal has committed an error in not taking the contributory negligence while considering the contention of the appellant. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal and also brought to our notice that the deceased was not having the Driving Licence and he was having only Learner Licence and the Tribunal did not consider the same. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the Apex Court in a recent judgment in the matter of Mohammed Siddiqui and Another v. National Insurance Company Ltd., & Others, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 24 , held that, the fact that the deceased was riding on a motor cycle with Learner Licence cannot be a ground to reject the claim of the claimants and the same is not only with regard to the violation of the law, but also the Court has to take note of either casual connection between the violation and the accident or casual connection between the violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim. The principle of contributory negligence could be invoked if material available on record discloses that either the accident could have been averted or the impact could have been minimized and hence, the deceased driving the motor cycle with Learner Licence cannot be a ground to take the contributory negligence. 8. Having heard the arguments of the appellants counsel and the counsel appearing for the respondents claimants the points that arise for consideration before us are; 1) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not taking the contributory negligence while considering the claim of the claimants? 2) What order? 9. Having regard to the factual aspects of the case and also material available on record, there is no dispute with regard to the involvement of two vehicles in the accident. The claimants in support of their claim have contended that there is no negligence on the part of the deceased. On the other hand, it is the contention of the insurance company that the accident is on account of the negligence on the part of the deceased. 10. The claimants in support of their claim have contended that there is no negligence on the part of the deceased. On the other hand, it is the contention of the insurance company that the accident is on account of the negligence on the part of the deceased. 10. Having considered the grounds urged in the appeal and also the material available on record, particularly, on perusal of the Sketch which is marked as Ex.P5, it depicts that the accident was occurred in the middle of the Road where, both vehicles are proceeding in opposite direction and the said Sketch has not been disputed by either of the parties before the Tribunal. 11. It is also important to note that the driver of the Bus is also examined as RW.1. In the evidence, RW.1 admits that he has not given any complaint. In the cross-examination of both RW.1 and the claimants, they have not disputed the place of accident. However, in the cross-examination of PW.1 he categorically admits that the accident took place in the middle of the Road and he also did not dispute that the deceased had Learners Licence at the time of the accident. PW.2 who has been examined in support of the claim of the claimants also categorically admits that front portion of the Bus was damaged. He further admits that all the wheels of the Bus were on Tar Road and the said Road is about 20 feet in width. 12. The Tribunal did not consider the evidence available on record, particularly, Ex.P5 Sketch and so also the evidence of PW.1 and in his evidence it is clear that the accident took place in the middle of the Road. The Sketch also depicts that the accident had taken place in the middle of the Road. The claimants also did not dispute that the deceased was having only Learners Licence. 13. It is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the person who is having Learners Licence cannot drive the vehicle on Road without an Instructor. In the instant case, the material on record before the Court is clear that the accident was in the middle of the Road. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also. In the instant case, the material on record before the Court is clear that the accident was in the middle of the Road. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also. The Tribunal also lost sight of the admission elicited in the oral evidence of PW.1 and also the evidence of RW.1 driver of the Bus. Merely the driver has not given complaint cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of RW.1 and also on perusing the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, it is clear that both PWs.2 and 3 came to the spot after the accident and hence, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case to take the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased which is not considered by the Tribunal. 14. Having considered the Sketch which is marked as Ex.P5 and the evidence of PW.1 and also the evidence of RW.1, the contributory negligence has to be apportioned to the extent of 75% on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and 25% on the part of the deceased. Hence, with regard to not taking the contributory negligence on the part of the Tribunal it requires interference of this Court. 15. In view of the discussion made above, we pass the following: ORDER 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified apportioning the contributory negligence to the extent of 75% on the driver of the offending vehicle and 25% on the part of the deceased and the appellant - insurer to pay 75% of the compensation with interest. 3. The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. 4. If any difference amount is payable, the same has to be deposited by the insurance company within four weeks from today. 5. The registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court record to the Tribunal forthwith.