JUDGMENT 1. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellants (legal heirs of the deceased, Parminder Singh) are aggrieved by the order dated 18th July, 2019, passed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh, whereby the appeal [FAO No. 6474/2018] preferred by the respondent No.1-Insurer of the offending vehicle against the award dated 7th May, 2018, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal [For short the’MACT’], Chandigarh, has been upheld and the High Court has held that the appellant – claimants are entitled only to 50% of the total compensation payable by the respondents jointly and severally on the ground that it was a case of contributory negligence and the deceased -Parminder Singh was also at fault in causing the accident. 3. It is not in dispute that the deceased, Parminder Singh was driving his car from his office to his home and when he reached the New Anaj Mandi, at Sirsa Road, Mansa, the offending vehicle being driven by late Shri Darshan Singh, had an head on accident with the car of late Shri Parminder Singh and both the drivers expired in the accident. Vide award dated 7th May, 2018, the MACT granted compensation of Rs. 63,35,536/- (Rupees Sixty Three Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Six) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum in favour of the appellants-claimants and held that the respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation. The aforesaid award has been modified by the High Court and the amount of compensation awarded has been slashed to Rs. 31,67,768/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakh Sixty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Eight) [i.e. 50% of the amount awarded by the MACT] on the ground that this was a case of contributory negligence and the predecessor in interest of the claimants was also at fault with the accident. The reasoning in the impugned judgement is extracted hereinbelow: “........But as the things stand, the two cars were involved in the accident. Both the cars were coming from opposite directions. It was a head-on collision. The reasoning in the impugned judgement is extracted hereinbelow: “........But as the things stand, the two cars were involved in the accident. Both the cars were coming from opposite directions. It was a head-on collision. Even if it is taken that the accident had happened on account of a stray animal suddenly appearing on the road and on account of glare of lights, the drivers being unable to see clearly and control their respective cars but then both the car drivers cannot be given clean chit in the manner saying that they were not at fault in happening of the accident. The car drivers should have been cautious and careful, while driving their respective cars, alive to such like situation that might have arisen, as a result of some human being, animal or article suddenly appearing in front of the car on the road and then to apply the brakes in time. The very fact that they were unable to control their cars well in time and the two cars had hit each other head-on goes to show that both of them contributed to the happening of the accident and it was certainly a case of contributory negligence......” 4. The impugned judgement itself notes that a stray animal had suddenly appeared on the road. The accident had taken place on 5th December, 2016 at 9.00 p.m. It has also been noted that due to the sudden glare of the head lights of the cars, the drivers were blinded and were unable to control their respective vehicles. That alone has been made the basis of arriving at the conclusion that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, Parminder Singh. 5. We are of the opinion that such a conclusion is unjustified and unwarranted. There was no reason for the High Court to have interfered with a well-reasoned order passed by the MACT. The MACT made the following pertinent observations regarding the manner in which the accident had taken place: "11. The fact remains that Ramandeep Singh, has come present in the court and categorically deposed on oath regarding the accident having taken place due to negligence of the respondent No.1, as a result of which the deceased Parminder Singh and respondent no.1 suffered injuries which resulted into their death has not been controverted by respondents by leading evidence. The fact remains that Ramandeep Singh, has come present in the court and categorically deposed on oath regarding the accident having taken place due to negligence of the respondent No.1, as a result of which the deceased Parminder Singh and respondent no.1 suffered injuries which resulted into their death has not been controverted by respondents by leading evidence. Merely on the basis of the fact that a DDR was got registered regarding the accident having taken place without anyone's fault, it cannot be conceded or held that the present claim petition has been filed on false facts. It is a settled principle of law that statement on oath before the Court is kept at a much higher pedestal when compared to a statement made to the police and it carries much higher evidentiary value and cannot be discarded. Perusal of the cross-examination of Ramandeep Singh reveals that nothing has come of such a nature so as to create any doubt regarding the mode and the manner of the accident as stated by him in his examination in chief...... 12. So, in these circumstances whatever evidence has come on record from both the sides in this aspect, after evaluating the same, the claimants have proved that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. Accordingly, this issue no. 1 is decided in favour of claimants and against the respondent." 6. In view of the observations made by this Court hereinabove, we are unable to sustain the impugned judgment that has reduced the amount awarded to the claimants by the MACT to 50%, which is accordingly set aside. The award dated 7th May, 2018, passed by the MACT, is restored. Respondent No.1-Insurer is directed to pay the amounts in terms of the award after adjusting the amounts already paid/released in favour of the appellants-claimants, by depositing the balance along with interest before the MACT, within six weeks from today. The amounts shall be released in favour of the appellants-claimants in terms of the award dated 7th May, 2018, by directly depositing the same in their bank account through RTGS. The details of the bank account shall be furnished by the appellants to the concerned Court. 7. The appeal is allowed on the above terms, leaving the parties to bear their own expenses.