JUDGMENT : Umesh A. Trivedi, J. 1. These Appeals, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arise from common judgment and award passed by the Presiding Officer, M.A.C.P. (Aux. 3), Ahmedabad Rural, dated 29.08.2009 rendered in M.A.C.P. Nos.1283 to 1285 of 1999, preferred by Tapan Lalitchandra Champaneria and Bhikhabhai Muljibhai Champaneria for the death of Lalitchandra Bhikhabhai Champaneria, Kokilaben Lalitchandra Champaneria and Twinkle Lalitchandra Champaneria respectively, who have died in a vehicular accident on 05.04.1999 at 12:15 a.m. occurred between maruti car bearing registration No.GJ-1-RR-1495 driven by deceased Lalitchandra Bhikhabhai Champaneria, who happens to be the father of applicant No.1 – Tapan and son of applicant No.2 – Bhikhabhai Muljibhai Champaneria, and truck bearing registration No.RJ-14-1-G-0081, praying for compensation for the death of rest of the family members of claimant No.1 – Tapan Lalitchandra Chapaneriya, which came to be allowed partly awarding compensation in all the three claim petitions awarding different amount, as mentioned in the impugned judgment and award. 2. As per the case of the claimants when Lalitchandra Champaneria – father of claimant No.1 – Tapan Lalitchandra Champaneria, along with his mother and sister, went for Darshan of “Lord Ganesh” at Village Koth, on 04.04.1999, while returning back when they reached near Sanathal, on Sarkhej – Bavda Highway, deceased – Lalitchandra was driving maruti car which was dashed by truck bearing registration number, as aforesaid, coming from a wrong-side from front and because of the careless and reckless driving of the truck, accident occurred causing death of all the passengers traveling in maruti car. In the said accident, Lalitchandra Champaneria, Kokilaben Lalitchandra Champaneria and Twinkle Lalitchandra Champaneria (father, mother and sister respectively) died in the aforesaid accident. It is averred in the claim petition that deceased – Lalitchandra was serving as General Manager in Cadila Pharmaceuticals and car was allotted by the employer to deceased father and in that way, family members of the deceased were traveling in the said car. It is further asserted that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.51,203/- per month plus perks and his service remains minimum 15 to 20 years and is expected that he might have gross salary of Rs.1 lakh and more. Therefore, the claimants have preferred the aforesaid claim petitions claiming compensation for death of all the three persons of the family. 3. Therefore, the claimants have preferred the aforesaid claim petitions claiming compensation for death of all the three persons of the family. 3. Since all three claim petitions arising from the same accident, it was consolidated and evidence was recorded in M.A.C.P. No.1283 of 1999. 4. On filing of the claim petitions and issuance of notices, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, who have preferred First Appeal Nos.249 and 250 of 2010, filed separate written statement denying the contents of the claim petition. It is contended by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited that accident has taken place due to sole negligence of the driver of the truck. They had also disputed the earning of the deceased as claimed. It is further contended by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited i.e. Insurance Company of the maruti car, that all the claim petitions claiming exaggerated amount of compensation and prayed for dismissal of all the claim petitions. United India Insurance Company Limited - opponent No.2 in the claim petition and the Insurance Company of Truck involved in an accident, filed separate written statement in each of the claim petitions, denying contents in toto. It has also contended that the accident took place on account of sole negligence of driver of maruti car. United India Insurance Company Limited had also disputed the earning of the deceased and claimed that the claimants have filed claim petitions for exaggerated amount and prayed for dismissal of all claim petitions. Rest of the opponents in the original claim petitions except two Insurance Companies, though served with the notices, none of them have appeared either personally or through their advocate. 5. After recording evidence and taking on record the documents and hearing the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the Tribunal held liable opponents jointly and severally directing payment of compensation of Rs.51,33,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization with proportionate cost for the death of Lalitchandra, Rs.24,45,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization with proportionate cost for the death of Kokilaben and Rs.5,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization for the death of Twinkle. 6. 6. While determining the claim petitions, the Tribunal held driver of the truck liable to the extent of 75% and driver of maruti car to the extent of 25% negligent for the accident caused. Both these Insurance Companies have preferred three different appeals before this Court challenging the amount of compensation as also the extent of contributory negligence determined in each of the claim petitions. However, both the Insurance Companies have not pressed appeals bearing Nos.251/2010 and 400/2010, after some arguments, arising from the claim petition No.1285 of 1999, awarding compensation in respect of death of Twinkle – sister of claimant No.1 – Tapan Lalitchandra Chapaneriya. Therefore, this Court is left to determine two of the appeals each in two of the claim petitions on merit, as aforesaid. 7. Heard Mr. Rathin Raval, Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati and Mr. Shirish M. Trivedi, learned advocates appearing for Oriental Insurance Company Limited, United India Insurance Company Limited and the claimants respectively. 8. Since maruti car was owned by Cadila Pharmaceuticals, it was also joined as party respondent in all the three claim petitions and it is also party in these appeals which is represented by Mr. Anuj K. Trivedi, learned advocate. 9. Mr. Rathin Raval as also Mr. Nanavati, learned advocates for the Insurance Companies submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of deceased – Lalitchandra based on document Exhibit -110, which is certificate claimed to have been issued by Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited, dated 05.05.1999, reflecting gross salary for the month of March, 1999 paid to Lalitchandra Bhikhabhai Champaneriya, General Managar (Projects) – deceased. They have further submitted that in view of salary- slip / pay-slip produced at Exhibit -109 as also the income-tax returns, though they are not of the relevant year, the certificate Exhibit -110 shows certain more amount paid, that too, by way of cash than the pay-slip which is of the month February, 1999. They have further submitted that Exhibit -110 is not the pay-slip for the month of March, 1999 i.e. of the last salary paid for the last month prior to the accident. As it is by way of certificate issued by Asst. General Manager (Legal) of Cadila Pharmaceuticals, without examining the person who issued the certificate. They have further submitted that Exhibit -110 is not the pay-slip for the month of March, 1999 i.e. of the last salary paid for the last month prior to the accident. As it is by way of certificate issued by Asst. General Manager (Legal) of Cadila Pharmaceuticals, without examining the person who issued the certificate. They have further submitted that cash components shown in the certificate Exhibit -110 for the salary of March, 1999 are missing in the pay-slip of deceased – Lalitchandra issued for the month of February, 1999, wherein total salary is shown to be Rs.36,409/- whereas certificate Exhibit -110 reflects gross salary for the month of March, 1999 shown to be Rs.53,745/-. 10. They have further submitted that since no deduction towards the income-tax as also professional tax shown in the certificate of gross salary Exhibit -110, it could not have relied on by the learned Tribunal to determine the monthly earning of deceased – Lalitchandra, for arriving a just compensation to be awarded, for the death of him to the claimants. They have further submitted that the total earning shown in the salary slip for the month of February, 1999, Exhibit -109 reflects deduction of Rs.7930/- towards income- tax and Rs.80/- towards professional tax. According to their submissions, payment to be made towards tax cannot be considered as earning, even if he was alive he had to pay that amount towards taxation out of his own earnings. Therefore, they have very vehemently submitted that monthly earnings of the deceased reflected in the pay-slip even if considered or the income-tax returns, though appears to be not exhibited, shows deductions towards the TDS to the extent of approximately 20% and deceased appears to be in the slab of 20% chargeable income-tax at the time of his death. Therefore, they have submitted that in no case he can be said to be earning Rs.53,000/- per month towards salary, as determined by the Tribunal and it is required to be interfered with and accordingly just compensation is to be arrived. 11. Therefore, they have submitted that in no case he can be said to be earning Rs.53,000/- per month towards salary, as determined by the Tribunal and it is required to be interfered with and accordingly just compensation is to be arrived. 11. They have further submitted that despite deceased (Lalitchandra) - driver of maruti car, held to be contributory negligent to the extent of 25% for the accident, heirs of deceased – Lalitchandra could not have been awarded total amount of compensation determined without deducting 25% from the compensation as he himself is wrongdoer and therefore, his heirs cannot be held entitled for that part of compensation. They have further submitted that learned Judge has not assigned reasons, much less, good reason not to deduct that 25% of the amount from the total compensation and therefore, also the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is required to be interfered with and appeals are required to be allowed accordingly. 12. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate as also Mr. Rathin Raval, learned advocate for the respective appellants have relied on a decision in the case of T. O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan And Others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 748 as also decision in the case of Khenyei Versus New India Assurance Company Limited and Ors. reported in (2015) 9 SCC 273 for the proposition that where the injured is guilty for some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stand reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. In short, these two decisions are relied for a proposition that when the claimants claim compensation for the death of deceased who was driving maruti car and deceased was held contributing negligence to the extent of 25%, from the amount determined as compensation, the Tribunal was supposed to reduce the compensation in proportion thereto. 13. As against that, Mr. Shirish M. Trivedi, learned advocate for the claimants submitted that claimant No.2 – Bhikhabhai, who happens to be the grand-father of claimant No.1 – Tapan, has relinquished his right to claim compensation in favour of claimant No.1 and therefore, any compensation that is to be determined, only claimant No.1 – Tapan would be the person to receive the compensation for the death of all the three deceased in a vehicular accident. He has further submitted that since on an application Exhibit -100, whereby he requested to open up the right of examination-in-chief as at the relevant time claimant did not possess the document which has been made available to him subsequent to his deposition as also the cross examination concluded. The learned Judge granted the said application and neither of the Insurance Companies have challenged that order. Pursuant thereto, claimant – Tapanbhai filed an additional affidavit in evidence producing documents Exhibit -110 by way of separate application Exhibit -102, requested the Court to exhibit the same. The pay-slip Exhibit -109 as also certificate of gross salary Exhibit -110 came to be exhibited through Court, as order passed below Exhibit -102 application of the claimant. He has further submitted that neither of the Insurance Companies have cross examined the claimant pursuant to the additional affidavit filed nor disputed the said document. Now, they are not permitted to challenge contents thereof and they cannot argue that Exhibit -110 document does not reflect the correct earning of deceased – Lalitchandra. 14. He has further submitted that the salary which was paid in cash as a part of his duty, over and above what is mentioned in pay-slip Exhibit-109, certified by employer, cannot be ignored and therefore, according to his submission, Tribunal has rightly considered the earning of the deceased to the tune of Rs.53,000/- per month for determination of the compensation. Therefore, he has submitted that the appeals having no merit in it, be dismissed. 15. So far as reduction of the compensation in proportion to the contributory negligence of deceased driver i.e. his father, since not reduced by the Tribunal for determination of just compensation as claimant has lost his entire family in the accident, it requires no interference even if it is concluded that it has to be deducted. He has further submitted that certain allowances were paid to the deceased – driver i.e. father of the claimant, as he was holding high position in the company for his meritorious services, maybe paid in cash, it is towards the monthly earning of the deceased, and therefore, those allowances also forming part of monthly earning and therefore, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal holding earning of the deceased to be Rs. 53,000/- per month which is as such Rs.53,744/-, which was rounded of to Rs. 53,000/- per month which is as such Rs.53,744/-, which was rounded of to Rs. 53,000/-, is legal and valid and requires no interference on that count. 16. Relying on a decision of Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, reported in 1997 ACJ 111 in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Santro Devi And Ors., more particularly para 50 thereof, which reads as under:- “50. It is incumbent upon the insurance company to further ensure that violation or non-compliance of the conditions either of the policy or of the provision of Section 147 equated to old Section 96-B(i)(ii) of the Act, was a wilful infringement. In order to meet the exigency of the object of the Act and public interest the exclusion clause has to be read down in order that the same is not at war with the purpose of providing safeguards to the victims of the accident and the role of the insurer to indemnify the Insured i.e. claim against tortfeaser is rendered illusory. The insurer is not left without a remedy. In case of violation of breach of term of the policy, the insurer can proceed against the insured, however, with regard to the liability against the third person which is the statutory duty of the insurer and the statutory right the third party, the same cannot be over ridden on account of any negligent violation intentional or un-intentional on the part of the insured and the insurer particularly if any one of them has been made to suffer on account of the act of third person i.e. the State, as in the case in hand, wherein the driver is alleged to have secured a fake licence which has been subsequently renewed and the insured acted on the assumption and presumption that the acts of the state done in due course of official discharge of duties are valid and legal. It is the duty of the State towards public and people at large who are required to rely on the acts of sovereign/state to ensure that their acts are not purged or forged and due care is taken for complying with the statutory provisions of law.” 17. He has further relied on later part of para 30, which is here as under:- “30. ………………. He has further relied on later part of para 30, which is here as under:- “30. ………………. The object of statutory and compulsory insurance under the Act is not only bereft of profit motive by the insurance companies but is also a step towards owning the responsibility by the society with respect to road victims.” 18. He has relied on several passages from the aforesaid decision, wherein role of insurance company vis-a-vis the object of Motor Vehicle Act is highlighted. Therefore, it is submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is valid and just compensation is awarded and therefore, appeals are required to be dismissed. 19. Having heard the learned advocates for the appearing parties and going through the judgment as also the evidence along with the documents produced and proved, it emerges that in the said accident, the claimant has lost his father, mother as also sister, rendering him alone in life at a stage where he just entered the youth, could not complete his graduation because of death of his entire family. Now, considering the evidence brought on record and re- appreciating it for the purpose of determining these appeals and to deal with the contention that compensation awarded is required to be reduced to the extent of contributory negligence attributed to the deceased – driver i.e. father of the claimant, if insurance policy which is brought on record, is seen, it reflects that risk of paid driver/workman No. 1 is covered under the policy. It is not the case of the claimant that his father, who was provided the car by the employer, driving it as a paid driver. Therefore, there appears some substance in the submission of the learned advocate for Oriental Insurance Company Limited that the risk of driver of a motor vehicle which is insured with it, was not covered and if he is held to be negligent contributory to the extent of 25%, the compensation awarded for the death of deceased – driver is required to be reduced to the extent of 25% of the total award. If driver himself is a wrongdoer, if not 100% as in this case, to the extent which is determined by the Tribunal, compensation awarded has to be reduced to that extent. 20. If driver himself is a wrongdoer, if not 100% as in this case, to the extent which is determined by the Tribunal, compensation awarded has to be reduced to that extent. 20. It is on the principle that wrongdoer cannot have benefit of his own wrong and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T. O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan And Others (Supra) and Khenyei Versus New India Assurance Company Limited and Ors. (Supra), the amount of compensation determined qua the claim for death of him is required to be reduced to the extent of 25%. Therefore, First Appeal Nos. 249 of 2010 as also 398 of 2010 are required to be partly allowed to that extent, as Tribunal, despite holding deceased – driver to be negligent to the extent of 25% in causing the accident, has not deducted or reduced the said compensation to that extent. 21. Coming to the second contention of the learned advocates representing Insurance company, a close look is required to Exhibit-109 and 110 for determining the real monthly earning of deceased – driver i.e. father of the claimant. If Exhibit-109 is seen, it is a pay-slip for the month of February, 1999, wherein gross total earning is shown to be Rs.36,409/-. Learned advocates for the Insurance Company submitted that deduction towards income-tax as also professional tax are also to be made from his monthly earning as it is even otherwise a liability of the deceased. 22. Drawing attention of the Court to the Income-tax returns filed as also the deduction made towards such taxes, a submission is made that the deceased was in the slab of 20% of the income-tax and if 20% of his total earning is deducted from his monthly salary to the extent of 20%, it would come to Rs.29,127/-, rounding it Rs.29,150/- as monthly earning of the deceased. Keeping in mind the prospective earning of the deceased who was in the age group of 45 to 50, the prospective earning could be considered at the rate of 30% of his monthly earning, which is required to be added, which comes to Rs.8745/-. So, it would be Rs.37,895/- and if round figure is considered, it should be Rs.37,900/- as monthly earning. Out of said amount, 1/3rd is required to be deducted towards his personal expenses, which would bring monthly dependency loss, which would come to Rs.25,267/-. So, it would be Rs.37,895/- and if round figure is considered, it should be Rs.37,900/- as monthly earning. Out of said amount, 1/3rd is required to be deducted towards his personal expenses, which would bring monthly dependency loss, which would come to Rs.25,267/-. Therefore, yearly dependency loss would be Rs.3,03,204/- and applying multiplier of 13, total dependency loss would come to Rs.39,41,652/-. 23. In view of celebrated case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and Ors., in all total Rs.70,000/- is again required to be added towards general damages including the loss of parental consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, compensation would come to Rs.40,11,652/-. 24. Though learned advocate for the claimants vehemently argued that certificate Exhibit -110, which reflects the monthly earning to be Rs.53,745/-, should be considered but since it contains payment made in cash and other benefits which are to be granted to him annually is also mentioned in it, over and above those components are not reflected in the pay- slip, coupled with the fact that person who has issued that certificate has not entered the witness box to affirm the same, certificate Exhibit -110 cannot be relied on for the purpose of considering monthly earning of the deceased - driver. 25. Thus, total compensation determined is further required to be reduced to the extent of 25% as deceased – driver himself was negligent contributing to the accident to that extent and therefore, amount would come to Rs.30,08,739/-. Therefore, award passed by the Tribunal awarding compensation to the claimant for the death of Lalitchandra is required to be reduced to the aforesaid extent, instead of Rs.51,33,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization with proportionate cost. Thus, First Appeal Nos.249 of 2010 & 398 of 2010 are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. If any of the Insurance Company has deposited the entire awarded amount which is higher than the amount determined in these appeals, it would be refunded to them in their proportion of share after due verification by A/c payee cheque or any other electronic mode. 26. It is clarified that both the Insurance Companies are entitled for refund of total Rs.21,24,261/- with proportionate accrued interest in their proportion of deposit after due verification. The Tribunal is directed to pass such orders in terms of aforesaid order. 26. It is clarified that both the Insurance Companies are entitled for refund of total Rs.21,24,261/- with proportionate accrued interest in their proportion of deposit after due verification. The Tribunal is directed to pass such orders in terms of aforesaid order. The claimant is entitled to the amount as determined hereinabove in proportion of accrued interest thereon. The remaining amount after deducting the proportionate share of the Insurance Company with accrued interest paid thereon be disbursed to the claimant. Both these Appeals i.e. First Appeal No.249 of 2010 and First Appeal No.348 of 2010 are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 27. So far as First Appeal Nos.250 of 2010 and 399 of 2010 are concerned, they arise out of claim petition filed by the claimant being MACP No.1284 of 1999 claiming compensation for the death of Kokilaben i.e. mother of the claimant. However, going through the entire award passed by the Tribunal, awarding compensation in respect of death of Kokilaben is concerned, she was also earning member of the family and income-tax returns by her were also filed, which have been produced before the Tribunal. On examining and considering the evidence led and documents produced and proved, learned Tribunal determined monthly earning of Kokilaben to be Rs.25,000/- and amount of compensation determined based thereon. We find, on re-appreciation of evidence, that amount of earning determined by the Tribunal based on document in the nature of income-tax returns, requires no interference as also the Insurance Companies have failed to dislodge the same and we find the amount of compensation determined for the death of Kokilaben who was also earning member running a shop in the name of Zee Shop, to be just and proper, and therefore, we do not deem it fit to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, both these appeals are dismissed. 28. Records and Proceedings be transmitted back to the concerned Tribunal.