(K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.)
P. Mohandoss and Another ___________________________ Appellant(s);
v.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another _____________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. 1610 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 18369 of 2019), decided on February 23, 2022
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants are parents of the deceased- C. Suresh who died in a Motor accident which took place on 13.12.2009.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the Insurer. Learned counsel for the appellants would raise three contentions before us. In the first place, he would contend that the High Court has erred in applying the multiplier 13 and that it should be 17. This is for the reason that the multiplier has been arrived at by the High Court not based on the age of the victim but based on the age of the parents. Secondly, he would submit that the appellants are also entitled to enhancement on the basis that the future prospects which should have been granted under the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has not been granted. Thirdly, he would contend that the High Court has erred in affirming the view taken by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short ‘MACT’) that there was contributory negligence. He would contend that evidence of PW-11 would show that the fault lay with the driver of the Truck and there was no fault on the part of the driver of the Car in which the deceased was traveling. He attacks the finding by pointing out that even if one of the persons had consumed alcohol, being drunk could not have been attributed on presumption to the driver. The deceased was traveling in a taxi.
4. Per-contra, while the learned counsel for the Insurer would point out that there is no basis for claiming any further enhancement on the basis of any error in the finding regarding contributory negligence, he would point out that the driver was not having a licence. He would further contend that as far as enhancement is concerned on the basis of future prospects, it must be limited to 40%, but then he points out that since the deceased was a bachelor, there must be deduction of one-half in place of one-third which is ordered by the High Court. Regarding the issue as to multiplier, learned counsel for the Insurer does not dispute that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the multiplier. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the appellants are entitled for partial relief.
5. As regards the multiplier which has been applied, the appellants are justified in making the demand that the multiplier should be increased to 17 from 13, on the basis the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and followed in subsequent judgments. Accordingly, it is so ordered. As far as issue relating to future prospects also, the appellants are entitled to relief and there will be enhancement of income by 50%, as the deceased was in permanent job and he was below 40 years. But there will be a deduction by one-half after arriving at the enhanced income having regard to the number of dependents the deceased left behind, namely, the parents and the fact that the deceased was a bachelor.
6. As far as the challenge to the concurrent findings that it is a case of contributory negligence and the request made to hold to the contrary, we do not think that the appellants have made out a case. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified and the appellants will be entitled for relief in the manner which we have indicated above. The insurer will re-compute the compensation in terms of this order and pay the amount due within a period of eight weeks from today.
7. There will be no order as to costs.
8. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
———
