Case: JUMANI BEGUM Vs. RAM NARAYAN

4. Relevant details pertaining to this appeal are as follows:The date of accident is 13 August 2008. The deceased was 53 years old at the time of the incident. He was employed as an Assistant Grade II in the Water Resources Department of the State of Chhattisgarh on a monthly salary of Rs 12,636. While he was riding his motorcycle at about 9 pm on Bilaspur-Raipur Road, there was a collision with a truck trailer which was parked on the road and he died on the spot. The appellant, who is the surviving spouse of the deceased, filed a claim for compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, claiming compensation in the amount of Rs 17,50,000. The truck driver, the owner of the vehicle and the insurer were impleaded as parties to the proceedings. The MACT, by its order dated 30 July 2009, came to the conclusion that this was a case of contributory negligenceHowever, on the ground of there being contributory negligence on the part of the deceased assessed at 50%, a total amount of Rs 3,81,988 came to be awarded, together with interest at six per cent per annum5. In appeal, the High Court affirmed the view of the MACT on contributory negligence, but recomputed the compensation. Taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs 12,636, one-third was deducted towards personal expenses. Applying a multiplier of 11, the deceased being 53 years of age, the total amount payable was computed at Rs 11,12,000 on account of loss of dependency. A lump sum of Rs 1,25,000 was awarded by the High Court towards conventional head. Since the High Court had affirmed the view of the MACT on contributory negligence, the total compensation was enhanced from Rs 3,81,988 to Rs 6,81,0006. In pursuance of the notice that was issued by this Court on 22 January 2019, the office report indicates that service is complete.

Reasoning:
After analysing the evidence of the driver, the MACT held that his evidence did not inspire confidence, when he stated that indicators on the truck trailer had been lit. On the contrary, the eye-witness, AW 2, in the course of his cross-examination, denied the existence of reflectors at the spot. The MACT noted that it did not appear that the truck trailer had been parked outside the area of the pakka road. In spite of its analysis in the above terms, the MACT surmised that if the lights of the motorcycle were lit, the deceased would have been able to avoid the accident. This part of the reasoning of the MACT is purely a matter of surmise. Once the substantive evidence before the MACT established that the truck trailer had been parked on the road at night without any reflectors, we are of the view that there was no reason or justification for the MACT to proceed on the basis of conjecture in arriving at a finding of contributory negligence. We find from the judgment of the High Court that this aspect has not been discussed at all and the High Court simply proceeded to confirm the finding of contributory negligence. Consequently, on the first limb of the submission, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is correct and the submission requires to be accepted10. On the computation of the compensation which is payable, we are guided by the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra). The monthly salary of the deceased, who was engaged as an Assistant Grade II in the Water Resources Department of the State of Chhattisgarh was Rs 12,636. Since the deceased was married, one-third deduction would have to be made on account of his personal expenses, which would work out to Rs 4,212. The net income would, therefore, be Rs 8,424. An addition of 15% towards future prospects would be required to be made having regard to the age of the deceased, which was 53. The total income of the deceased would, therefore, work out to Rs 9,687 per month. The yearly income of the deceased would stand computed at Rs 1,16,244. Applying a multiplier of 11, the total loss of dependency would be Rs 12,78,684. In addition to the aforesaid amount, conventional heads amounting to Rs 75,000 would have to be granted in terms of the decision noted above.