JUDGMENT ABHAY AHUJA, J. - This is an appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dtd. 2/3/2016, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadchiroli, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 81 of 2014, by which the appellant/Insurance Company and the respondent no. 4/owner of the car were directed to jointly and severally pay an amount Rs.5, 00, 961.00 (Rupees Five Lacs Nine Hundred Sixty One Only) inclusive of no fault liability of Rs.50, 000.00 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till realization of amount. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant/Insurance Company had for the period 15/5/2014 to 14/5/2015 insured a Santro Car (for short, the "said car") bearing Registration No. MH-33-A-952 owned by respondent no. 4 under a Private Car Package Policy. On 24/10/2014, the said car driven by the respondent no. 4/owner of the car met with an accident with a motorcycle bearing Registration No. MH-33-B-6493 on Gadchiroli Aarmori Road. There was a head on collision between the two vehicles. The motorcycle was driven by the deceased Ramji Bhoyar, who after the collision sustained grievous injuries to his head and other parts of the body was taken to a general hospital, at Gadchiroli, where he succumbed to his injuries and died. The respondents no. 1 to 3 in this appeal claiming to be the legal heirs of the deceased Ramji Bhoyar, filed Claim Petition No. 81 of 2014 on 21/11/2014 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadchiroli, claiming a compensation under Sec. 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, of Rs.6, 00, 000.00 from the respondent no. 4/owner of the car and the Insurance Company, who is the appellant herein. Alongwith the claim petition an application under Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act of 1988") for claiming an amount of Rs.50, 000.00 towards no fault liability was also filed. 3. On 22/1/2015, the respondent no. 4/owner of the said car filed his reply to the claim petition under Sec. 166 (1) as well as to the application under Sec. 140 of the Act of 1988. A specific plea was taken by the respondent no. 3. On 22/1/2015, the respondent no. 4/owner of the said car filed his reply to the claim petition under Sec. 166 (1) as well as to the application under Sec. 140 of the Act of 1988. A specific plea was taken by the respondent no. 4/owner of the said car that the deceased Ramji Bhoyar was riding the motorcycle alongwith two other pillion riders and all of a sudden took a turn without giving any indication and due to the loss of balance, he gave a dash to the right side of the said car. The contention of the respondent no. 4 was that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased Ramji Bhoyar. The appellant/Insurance Company also filed its written statement opposing the claim petition. On 2/3/2016, after considering the evidence recorded, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadchiroli, allowed the claim petition and by the impugned judgment and award granted compensation of Rs.5, 00, 961.00 inclusive of no fault liability of Rs.50, 000.00 alongwith interest, jointly and severally to be paid by the appellant/Insurance Company and respondent no. 4/owner of the said car. 4. Shri. Harish V. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the respondents no. 1 to 3 have filed execution proceedings, which have been stayed by this Court, till the final disposal of the appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant would firstly submit that there is no negligence that has been proved on the part of the owner of the said car. He draws the attention of this Court to paragraph 12 of the impugned decision and submits that there is a clear finding that the driver of the motorcycle was driving the motorcycle with two other persons on the motorcycle. He submits that it is obvious that therefore the driver of the motorcycle could have lost his balance and control. Also, there is no eye witness account to establish that the motorcycle was hit by the said Santro Car. He would submit that the entire incident took place in the middle of the road and the said car cannot be held solely responsible for the accident. That, the Tribunal has erroneously held that the negligence contributed by the driver of the motorcycle is only 10%. He submits that, infact, negligence should have been completely attributable to the driver of the motorcycle. That, the Tribunal has erroneously held that the negligence contributed by the driver of the motorcycle is only 10%. He submits that, infact, negligence should have been completely attributable to the driver of the motorcycle. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Sinitha (2012) 2 SCC 356 ; he particularly refers to paragraph 36 on page 379 to submit that just because the driver at the wheels at the time of the accident is responsible for the accident, because he was driving the vehicle, which was involved in the accident, but it is not that he can be held to be negligent as negligence is a factual issue and can only be established through cogent evidence. The learned counsel would therefore submit that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the said car, and therefore, no liability can be fixed on the appellant/Insurance Company, which insured the said car. 6. Alternatively, he submits that even if there is contributory negligence, but attributing 10% negligence to the motorcycle driver would be unfair, and therefore, in the event it is held that there is contributory negligence, the liability for the same should be apportioned equally between the said car driver and the driver of the motorcycle. He submits that there is a clear finding that the accident between the four wheeler Santro car and the motorcycle occurred in the middle of the road, where both were found damaged on the spot. Learned counsel also refers to the deposition at page 56 of the paper-book to submit that from the examination-in-chief of the Officer, who visited the spot, it emerges that there were three persons on the motorcycle at the time of the accident and there was no helmet worn by the driver of the motorcycle. 7. With respect to the issue of quantum, learned counsel refers to paragraph 14 of the impugned decision with reference to issue no. 4 and submits that there is no documentary evidence filed on record by the claimant to show that the deceased was doing the job of a driver or that he was earning Rs.10, 000.00 per month. He submits that despite the said finding, the Tribunal has erroneously gone ahead and computed the deceased's income as Rs.5, 000.00 per month. 4 and submits that there is no documentary evidence filed on record by the claimant to show that the deceased was doing the job of a driver or that he was earning Rs.10, 000.00 per month. He submits that despite the said finding, the Tribunal has erroneously gone ahead and computed the deceased's income as Rs.5, 000.00 per month. He submits that in this view of the matter, on both counts viz. on unproved negligence on the part of the owner of the said car as well as on the quantum of compensation, the order of the Tribunal is bad and deserves to be set aside and the appeal be allowed. 8. On the other hand, Shri Piyush P. Pendke, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 to 3/claimants would submit that this is not a case of contributory negligence. He draws the attention of this Court to paragraph 11 of the impugned decision and submits that the accident took place on Gadchiroli Aarmori Road and the applicants have not made the Insurance Company that insured the motorcycle as party and no documents have been produced on record regarding the said motorcycle. He submits that a perusal of the spot panchanama clearly reveals that the accident occurred on Gadchiroli to Aarmori Road and that the said road is having a width of 40 feet and towards the western side wall of divider of the said road, the said Hero Honda motorcycle bearing no. MH-33-B-6493 was found lying and blood was found lying on the road between the gap of the divider and only four chappals were also found on the spot. Further the four wheeler of Santro car bearing No. MH-33-A-952 was also found on the road and its right side bonnet and head light were found broken and the said motorcycle was also found in a damaged condition. Therefore, no contributory negligence can be attributed to the driver of the motorcycle. 9. Learned counsel would submit that this is the only evidence that is available and that in no way proves that the driver of the said motorcycle was negligent. He submits that the question of contributory negligence would arise only when both parties are found to be negligent. Learned counsel relies upon paragraph 19 of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. He submits that the question of contributory negligence would arise only when both parties are found to be negligent. Learned counsel relies upon paragraph 19 of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shaila Janardhan Zendekar (2020) 2 Mah LJ 694 to submit that it is only when the act or omission which materially contributed to the accident and resulted in injury and damage that the concept of contributory negligence would apply. Learned counsel further submits that not wearing a helmet by itself would not give rise to a finding of negligence though the same may be illegal. 10. With respect to the quantum of compensation of Rs.5, 000.00 being the notional income considered by the Tribunal, learned counsel submits that the same is appropriate and deserves to be upheld as it is a minimum wage. He refers to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2021) 2 SCC 166 , AIR 2021 SC 353 and refers to paragraph 15 of the said decision to submit that in that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court had upheld the High Court's adoption of multiplier on the notional income, which was as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. He, therefore, urges this Court that the impugned order be sustained and the appeal be dismissed. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company in rejoinder would submit that the claim of the respondents no. 1 to 3/claimants was a fault liability claim and not a no fault liability claim, and as such, the claim ought to have been dismissed by the Tribunal. He would further submit that there is no finding in the judgment with respect to the material contribution by the said car, which goes against the case of the claimants. He therefore submits that the appeal be allowed. 12. I have heard Shri. Harish V. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and Shri. Piyush P. Pendke, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3/claimants and with their able assistance, I have perused the paper-book as well as impugned decision. 13. There is no doubt that the accident involving the four wheeler Santro Car and the two wheeler motorcycle took place in the middle of the road at the spot as stated in the impugned decision. 1 to 3/claimants and with their able assistance, I have perused the paper-book as well as impugned decision. 13. There is no doubt that the accident involving the four wheeler Santro Car and the two wheeler motorcycle took place in the middle of the road at the spot as stated in the impugned decision. It cannot also be denied that the motorcycle driver was driving the motorcycle with two other pillion riders. A motorcycle is ordinarily designed to seat the driver and one more person as pillion and is definitely not designed for having three people on it. It is, therefore, quite possible as found by the Tribunal that the motorcycle driver could have lost control even after applying the brakes. Although, the charge-sheet is filed only against the driver of the said car, there would be contributory negligence on the part of the motorcycle driver as well. True, as held in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Sinitha (supra), that the negligence is a factual issue and is to be established through cogent evidence. There is no dispute as to the factum of the accident/collision between the subject four wheeler Santro car and the two wheeler Hero Honda motorcycle which occurred in the middle of the road and both the vehicles were found damaged on the spot. The driver of the motorcycle was driving the motorcycle with two other persons on the motorcycle. Though he applied the brakes, he could not control the vehicle. Taking these facts into consideration, the motorcycle driver can also be said to be responsible for the accident. 14. In the facts of the case at hand, I do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred in the middle of the road and the four wheeler Santro car and the motorcycle were found damaged at the spot or that the driver of the motorcycle was driving the motorcycle with two other persons on the motorcycle. The Tribunal has, in my view, correctly observed that the motorcycle driver should also be held responsible for the accident as he could not control the vehicle even after applying the brakes. Paragraph 19 of the decision in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shaila Janardhan Zendekar (supra) is usefully quoted as under: "19. The Tribunal has, in my view, correctly observed that the motorcycle driver should also be held responsible for the accident as he could not control the vehicle even after applying the brakes. Paragraph 19 of the decision in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shaila Janardhan Zendekar (supra) is usefully quoted as under: "19. The question is whether the rider of the motorcycle can be held guilty of composite or contributory negligence for contravention of Sec. 128(1) and 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In this regard it would be advantageous to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sudhir kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh 2008 ACJ 1834 . The Apex Court while considering the question whether driving a vehicle without holding a valid and effective license amounted to contributory negligence has observed thus: "6. A contributory negligence may be defined as negligence in not avoiding the consequences arising from the negligence of some other person, when means and opportunity are afforded to do so. The question of negligence would arise only when both parties are found to be negligent. 7. The question is negligence for what? If the complainant must be guilty or an act or omission which materially contributed to the accident and resulted in injury and damage, the concept of contributory negligence would apply. (see. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Avinash)... 8. *** 9. If a person drives a vehicle without a license, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident..." (emphasis supplied) 15. There is no doubt therefore that there is contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers of the four wheeler Santro car as well as the motorcycle in the facts of this case. 16. The element of proportionality of contributory negligence is a subjective finding, the Tribunal has attributed 10% of negligence upon the driver of the motorcycle. It must not be forgotten that after the accident, the driver of the motorcycle has succumbed to his injuries and died in the hospital on 24/10/2014. The claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed by his wife, son and daughter. In my view, therefore, the provision of contributory negligence of 10% on the motorcycle driver does not warrant any interference. 17. The claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed by his wife, son and daughter. In my view, therefore, the provision of contributory negligence of 10% on the motorcycle driver does not warrant any interference. 17. The opinion of the Tribunal that the motorcycle driver has contributed 10% negligence to the accident, cannot be faulted with. 18. Further, it is a settled principle that just because a person commits an offence, that by itself would lead to a finding of negligence with respect to an accident. Therefore, although the driver of the motorcycle may not have been wearing a helmet and the same may be illegal, but that cannot add to the contributory negligence of 10% for which the motorcycle driver has been held liable. 19. As far as the computation of quantum of compensation awarded on a notional basis is concerned, the following portion of paragraph 15 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) is usefully quoted as under: "15. Finally, given the lack of arguments on the other heads of funeral charges, loss of estate, love and affection; there arises no cause of alteration. We similarly see no infirmity with the High Court's adoption of 17 as the age-multiplier, award of 9% interest, calculation of Poonam's notional income or the division of total compensation in the ratio of 1 : 2 : 2 between the grandfather and the two girls. For ready reference, a comparative table of revised compensation after suitable increases would thus be as follows: (emphasis supplied) 20. Therefore, no fault can be found with the finding of the Tribunal, inasmuch as the Tribunal could only have computed the minimum wage of Rs.5000.00 per month, considering the finding that there was no documentary evidence filed on record to show that the deceased was doing a job of a driver and was earning Rs.10, 000.00 per month. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadchiroli, there being no error or perversity in the finding of the Tribunal. 22. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. All ad-interim/interim orders to stand vacated. No costs.