JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2/ claimants and the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 (owner). 2. This appeal has been preferred being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Award dated 01.06.2024 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Motor Accident Claim Case No.420 of 2022. 3. Mr. Alok Lal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that it is the case of contributory negligence and the entire responsibility has been fastened upon the appellant herein and in view of that the Awarded amount is required to be reduced. He submits that this is the first ground of challenge under the present appeal and so far as the income salary certificate is concerned that has not been proved and in view of that also the award is bad in law. He submits that in view of that at least the awarded amount may kindly be reduced. He relied in the case of Rahmani Begum (Mother of deceased) W/o Late Sh. Rahis Ahmed and Others, 2019 0 Supreme (Del) 30 . By way of referring the said judgment he submits that the Delhi High Court has held that if a person drives on the public road without valid driving license, against such act tortuous liability will not be fastened upon the insurance company. 4. Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 submits that the deceased was a government employee and the documents were down-loaded from the web site of the Government of Jharkhand and as such the learned court has relied upon that. He submits that in view of that, there is no perversity in the Award so far as the income is concerned. He thereafter submits that the entire negligence in the charge sheet is proved against the Bolero Pick Up Van and as the deceased son of the claimant/appellant was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligence manner has not been proved. He submits that in this background, the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the Award. 5. It transpires that on 09.07.2022 at about 12 P.M Constable Denish Vimal Kerketta was returning home after participating in South Chotanagpur Regional Police Athletic Competition riding his Motorcycle. He submits that in this background, the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the Award. 5. It transpires that on 09.07.2022 at about 12 P.M Constable Denish Vimal Kerketta was returning home after participating in South Chotanagpur Regional Police Athletic Competition riding his Motorcycle. That in the course of his journey when he reached near Project Girls High School on Ranchi-Simdega Main Road within the jurisdiction of P.S. Kamdara District Gumla he was cashed by a speeding Mahindra and Mahindra Pick Up Van bearing registration No.JH- 01DG-0527. The offending driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of the said accident victim Denish Vimal Kerketta sustained multiple grievous injuries and died at the place of accident. Postmortem upon the body of the deceased was conducted at Sadar Hospital, Gumla on 10.07.2022 and report prepared vide P.M. report dated 10.07.2022 and accordingly for the aforesaid accident, the FIR was registered as Kamdara P.S. Case No.36 of 2022 dated 10.07.2022 under sections 279, 427 and 304A of the IPC against driver of the said offending vehicle Mahindra Pick Up Van. The investigating officer of the criminal case conducted investigation about the alleged offense and identified Gulshan Kumar as the offending driver of the said Pick Up Van and has filed charge sheet for the offence under sections 279, 427 and 304A of the IPC vide charge sheet No.51 of 2022 dated 13.09.2022. 6. The learned Tribunal has framed six issues to decide the claim. The exhibit 10 is photocopy of the Pan Card of the deceased, Exhibit 11 is photocopy of the of I.Card of the deceased, Exhibit 12 is photocopy of salary certificate, Exhibit 13 is photocopy of the appointment letter of the deceased and Exhibit 14 is the photocopy of the Service Book and all these documents have been considered by the learned Tribunal while deciding the issue no.1 to 3 and 4 simultaneously. The learned Court has considered the evidence of AW1 who has deposed that he is one of the claimant and father of the deceased and he has stated that his son was posted as Constable No.18, SIT 19 Girda, O.P. on 09.07.2022 he was returning after participating South Chotanagpur Regional Police Athletic Competition riding his Motorcycle and narrated how the accident took place. The post-mortem was performed and he was found to be 31 years old unmarried man. The post-mortem was performed and he was found to be 31 years old unmarried man. The monthly income of the deceased was Rs.35,794/-. The learned court has further considered the exhibits and particularly exhibit 10 i.e. Identification Card of the deceased, Exhibit 11 is salary certificate down-loaded from the web site of the Government of Jharkhand, Exhibit 12 is photocopy of the appointment letter and considering that the same has been down-loaded from the site of the Government of Jharkhand web-site it has accepted the salary certificate. It has not been proved by way of leading evidence that the deceased was not a constable and his salary was found to be Rs.35,794/-. Thus, the point with regard to the salary certificate is not being accepted by this court. So far the driving license of the deceased is concerned, from the charge sheet it transpires that the entire liability of negligence has been fastened upon the driver of the Mahindra Pick Up Van and there is no charge sheet against the deceased with regard to any negligence on behalf of the deceased is concerned and the learned Tribunal has further found that the insurance company has not been able to prove that the deceased was negligence and no contrary evidence was placed on the record by the insurance company and in view of that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the Award and the learned Tribunal has not found any negligence on behalf of the deceased. 7. So far as the judgment relied by Mr. Alok Lal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant /insurance company is concerned in the case of Surender Kumar Arora and Another v. Manoj Bisla And Others (supra) is concerned, in that case the motorcyclist had hit head on to a truck and due to that the motorcyclist fell down and in that case, the negligence was proved of motorcyclist and in that background, the Delhi High Court has passed the said order and the facts of the present case is not on the same footing that of the aforesaid case and as such the judgment relied by Mr. Alok Lal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance company is not helping the appellant/Insurance company and further the negligence part of the deceased is concerned, a reference may be made to the case of Mohammed Siddique and Another v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2020) 3 SCC 57 paragraph no.13 and 14 of the said judgment are quoted below: “ 13. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that the wrongful act on the part of the deceased victim contributed either to the accident or to the nature of the injuries sustained, the victim could not have been held guilty of contributory negligence. Hence, the reduction of 10% towards contributory negligence, is clearly unjustified and the same has to be set aside. 14. The second issue on which the High Court reversed the finding of the Tribunal, related to the employment of the deceased and the monthly income earned by him. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 23 years at the time of the accident and he was not even a matriculate. But he was stated to have been employed in a proprietary concern named M/s Chandra Apparels on a monthly salary of Rs 9600. The sole proprietor of the concern was examined as PW 2 and the salary certificate was marked as Ext. PW-1/8. The Tribunal which had the benefit of recording the evidence and which consequently had the benefit of observing the demeanour of the witness, specifically recorded a finding that there was no reason to discard the testimony of PW 2.” 8. In view of the above judgment also the case of the claimants are fortified in the present case also and the wrongful act on the part of the deceased has not been proved by the appellant/insurance company and that is the finding of the learned Tribunal. 9. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned Award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Motor Accident Claim Case No.420 of 2022, and as such, this miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. 10. 9. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned Award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Motor Accident Claim Case No.420 of 2022, and as such, this miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. 10. It has been pointed out that in terms of the Award, the amount has also been deposited before the learned Tribunal and in view of that, the learned Tribunal will release the same if not released as yet in favour of the claimants within four weeks. 11. So far as the statutory amount deposited before this Court is concerned, that will be returned back to the insurance company as it has been pointed out that the entire awarded amount has already been deposited before the learned Tribunal. 12. While disbursing the amount to the claimants, the learned Tribunal will take care that the said amount may not be mismanaged by any person as it has been pointed out that the claimants are the illiterate and aged persons.