JUDGMENT : C M Joshi, J. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 28-7-2017 passed in MVC No. 876/2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Channagiri, whereby a sum of Rs.7,38,000/- has been awarded to the petitioners as compensation on account of the death of the deceased Kumar in the road traffic accident. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that, on 7-1-2014 at about 12.00 p.m. when their son Kumar was going on a motor cycle bearing No. KA.17.EL.4339 from Navilehall village towards Santhebennur, the respondent No. 1 drove the tractor bearing No. KA.17.T.6071-6072 belonging to respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of Kumar. As a result, Kumar suffered grievous injuries and died while being taken to the hospital. It was further submitted that, deceased was aged about 25 years, was the sole bread earner of the family, earning Rs.7,000/- per month. Further, they contended that the tractor trailer was insured with respondent No. 3. Therefore, they filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 3. On issuance of notice by the Tribunal, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have appeared before the Tribunal. Respodnent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their objection statement contending that the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the accident occurred due to negligence of deceased and further submitted that the Tractor trailer were insured with the respondent No. 3 and if the Court comes to conclusion that petitioners are entitled for compensation, then the liability has to be fastened on respondent No. 3 and prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. The respondent No. 3- Insurance Company has filed the objection statement contending that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased and he was not having a valid driving licence and also insurance. It was further contended that, police have filed charge sheet against the deceased and he had been arrayed as accused No. 2 and therefore, it is not at all liable to indemnify the respondent No. 2 and that the claim is highly exorbitant. It was further contended that, police have filed charge sheet against the deceased and he had been arrayed as accused No. 2 and therefore, it is not at all liable to indemnify the respondent No. 2 and that the claim is highly exorbitant. It was further contended that the tractor driver was falsely implicated to claim monetary benefits and the tractor has been used for non-agricultural purpose, there was breach of policy conditions and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. The Tribunal on the basis of the above pleadings, framed appropriate issues and the petitioner No. 1 was examined as PW1, and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked in evidence. Respondents have examined two witnesses as RWs- 1 and 2 and got marked Exs. R1 to R3. 6. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.7,38,000/- to the petitioners under the following heads together with interest at 6% p.a. and directed the insurance Company to deposit the same. Loss of dependency Rs.6,48,000/- Consortium Rs. 30,000/- Loss of affection Rs. 40,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs.7,38,000/- 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Insurance Company has approached this Court in appeal contending that, the Tribunal has not considered the facts borne out of the police papers, wherein the deceased was found to be a contributor for the negligence since he did not possess a valid driving licence to drive the motor cycle and that there were two pillion riders on the motor cycle. 8. On issuance of notice, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have appeared through their counsels. 9. On admitting the appeal, the Tribunal records have been secured and the arguments by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were heard. Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 did not appear to advance his arguments. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company would contend that after the investigation the police had filed the chargesheet against the driver of the tractor as well as the deceased Kumar. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not at all bestowed its attention on the evidence on record and it has fastened the entire liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company. He submits that the deceased was on the wrong side of the tractor and atleast 50% of the negligence should have been attributed to the deceased. 11. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not at all bestowed its attention on the evidence on record and it has fastened the entire liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company. He submits that the deceased was on the wrong side of the tractor and atleast 50% of the negligence should have been attributed to the deceased. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would submit that there is collision between the tractor and the motor cycle which were moving in opposite direction. Therefore, the negligence was apparently by the driver of the tractor and as such, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal has to be sustained. 12. The fact that there was an accident involving the motor cycle ridden by deceased Kumar bearing Reg. No. KA.17-EL-4339 and the tractor trailer bearing Reg.Nos.KA.17.T.6071-6072 driven by respondent No. 1 is not in dispute. So also the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant-Insurance Company do not dispute the quantum of the compensation determined by the Tribunal. Therefore, it is only the question of contributory negligence which is in dispute. 13. A perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that there is absolutely no appreciation of the evidence available on record in the form of Exs.P1 to P9. The Tribunal has not bestowed its attention as to whether there is any contributory negligence by the deceased? 14. A perusal of Exs.P1 and P2 which are the FIR and the complaint would show that the deceased Kumar was riding the motor cycle with one Anjaneya and Thippesha as pillion riders. Ex.P3 which is the chargesheet shows that apart from the respondent No. 1, driver of the vehicle, the deceased Kumar and the owner of the motor cycle were arrayed as the accused. It also discloses that the rider of the motor cycle, Kumar, son of Manjappa died due to the injuries suffered in the accident. Thus, the investigation papers would show that the deceased Kumar was also prosecuted for negligent driving, but however, the case abated against him. 15. It also discloses that the rider of the motor cycle, Kumar, son of Manjappa died due to the injuries suffered in the accident. Thus, the investigation papers would show that the deceased Kumar was also prosecuted for negligent driving, but however, the case abated against him. 15. A perusal of the spot mahazar produced at Ex.P4 coupled with the sketch of the spot produced at Ex.R2 show that while the deceased Kumar was riding the motor cycle with two pillion riders from Giriyapura towards Hirekogluru, he was moving at the center of the road and while the tractor was coming from the opposite direction, accident occurred on the left side for the tractor driver. There is no reason available on record to show why the motor cyclist went on the extreme right side of the road. Therefore, even the chargesheet papers also disclose that there was negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle. 16. The testimony of PW-1, who also happens to be the complainant before the police show that he pleads ignorance about the manner in which the accident occurred. He pleads ignorance about the allegations made in the chargesheet but denies any negligence of the deceased. No other eye witness of the accident is examined by either of the parties. RW1 happens to be the official of the Insurance Company and RW2 is none else than the owner of the tractor. Therefore, when the available evidence in the form of the police papers are appreciated, it is evident that the accident had occurred on the right side of the road for the motor cyclist. The report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector produced at Ex.P8 shows that there were damages on the left side view mirror and the handle bar of the motor cycle was twisted. There were no damages to the tractor. In cases involving tortfeasance the principles of res ipsa Loquitor come into play and may be applied. 17. Considering the fact that the deceased Kumar was also not having a valid driving licence and he had allowed two pillion riders which was also not permissible, and also the fact that the motor cycle had suffered damages on the left side, this Court comes to the conclusion that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 17. Considering the fact that the deceased Kumar was also not having a valid driving licence and he had allowed two pillion riders which was also not permissible, and also the fact that the motor cycle had suffered damages on the left side, this Court comes to the conclusion that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. In the considered opinion of this Court, the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Kumar was to the extent of 40% and on the part of the driver of the tractor was 60%. 18. In view of the above discussion, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. The quantum of the compensation determined by the Tribunal is not disputed by the appellant. Therefore, out of the compensation of Rs.7,38,000/-, the petitioners are entitled for 60% i.e. Rs.4,42,800/- together with interest. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by fixing contributory negligence on the part of the deceased-Kumar at 40% and as such, petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.4,42,800/- instead of Rs.7,38,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. (iii) The appellant- Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within four weeks from today. (iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal remains unaltered. (v) The amount which is in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. If the amount deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company is in excess of entitlement of the petitioners as above, the same shall be refunded to the appellant- Insurance company.