AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
At the midnight of the 20th and 30th March, 2003, Pukhraj, working as a development officer with Life Insurance Corporation of India was riding a
motor cycle on N.H.79. When he reached near village Rayla, he collided with a stationary truck bearing No.H.R. 38G 5191. As a result of the
accident he died.
In view of the evidence that the width of the road is 24 feet evinced by the site plan and that the truck was stationary in the middle of the road
without any parking lights and without indicators, the Tribunal held that the driver of the truck as well as the deceased were responsible for the
accident, with 30% contributory negligence of the deceased.
Concerning this finding the argument in the appeal is that the entire negligence is attributable to the deceased.
I disagree. The site plan shows that the truck was parked in the middle of the road. There is evidence that there were no parking lights as well as
no indicators at the rear of the truck.
Thus, 70% contributory negligence by the driver of the truck determined by the Tribunal is upheld.
The second contention advanced is regarding the income of the deceased and application of multiplier of 18.
The age of the deceased is 30 years. His net monthly salary after deducting taxes and other deduction proved through evidence is ₹5240/- per
month. The deceased was also entitled to a bonus of the work generated by him. In the year proceedings his death, he got a bonus of ₹31000/-.
Granting deceased 25% increase in salary on account of job being permanent, the future monthly salary has been treated as ₹6550/-. Adding 25% of
the annual bonus, the income has been treated as ₹78600+38750=117350. Deducting one third thereof i.e. ₹39117/- as personal expenses of the
deceased, compensation assessed is loss of ₹78,233/- per annum. Multiplier used is 18.
In view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 25590/2014 National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay
Sethi & Ors, the multiplier as indicated in the decision reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121 Sarla Verma & ors. vs. DTC & ors. had to be applied. The same
would be 17. But, as per the decision in Pranay Sethi’s case the deceased would be entitled to 50% enhanced on future perspective and not 25%.
Thus, even if I reduced the multiplier from 18 to 17 but make correction on account of future process being enhanced from 25% to 50%, the net
amount payable to the respondent would enhance.
Regretfully the appeal for enhancement filed by the respondent has been dismissed. It is unfortunate that the Registry did not list both appeals
together. Thus I dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
Interim order granted to the appellant on 13.11.2006 is vacated.