THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1949 of 2004 J U D G M E N T: The appellant – Insurance Company challenges the award dated 11.02.2004 in O.P.No. 2697 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this Appeal are: The case of the 1st respondent was that on 18.11.2001 at about 01.30 pm., while himself along with two others were going on a scooter near Sub-station, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad, a lorry bearing No. AET 7281, owned by the 2nd respondent, insured with the appellant, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter, due to which, the 1st respondent sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, he claimed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, towards compensation, under various heads against the appellant Insurance company and the 2nd respondent owner of the lorry. The appellant herein filed the counter denying the averments made in the O.P. The Tribunal, after the pleadings are complete, framed the following issues, for trial: 1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor accident that took place on 18.11.2001 at about 01.30 pm., near sub-station, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad, due to rash and negligent driving of lorry AET 7281? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? The 1st respondent himself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A6. On behalf of the appellant Insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. The Tribunal, after considering the material and evidence available on record, held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and accordingly held the appellant as well as the 2nd respondent herein as liable to pay the compensation at the rate of Rs. 62,500/- with interest at 9% thereon from the date of petition till the date of realization. On the ground that there is contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the scooter as well as the lorry driver, the appellant Insurance company has preferred this Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that the Tribunal ought to have considered that there exists contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. He further contends that the Tribunal, while awarding the compensation, missed the point that there is violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules framed thereunder by the claimant for driving the scooter with two pillion riders. Here, it is to be noticed that the pleadings in the O.P. itself show that the 1st respondent with two others was going on a scooter, which is in utter violation of the provisions of the 1988 Act. Though the contributory negligence is a matter of proof, but not an assumption, I am in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that since the 1st respondent along with two others was going on the scooter, they could not control the vehicle and they also contributed to the cause of the accident. This Court, in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K. Anjaiah[1], while dealing with the matter of contributory negligence, fixed the liability at 75% on the part of the lorry driver and at 25% on the part of the scooter driver. Following the dictum laid down in the aforesaid judgment, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, fixing the liability of the lorry driver at 75% and that of the scooterist at 25%. Therefore, it is made clear that the appellant insurance company is liable to pay 75% of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. No costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 5th August 2010 ksld [1] 2004(4) ALD 444