IMPORTANT POINT
Death in motor accident – Provision of providing compensation in accident cases under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial provision to enhance social justice.

JUDGMENT :

(Prasanna B. Varale, J.) :

1. Leave granted.

2. The challenge in the present appeals is to the common order dated 27.02.2020 in FAO No. 1905 of 2014 (O&M) and 8197 of 2014 (O&M) whereby the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had partially upheld the order dated 03.06.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Kaithal, (‘MACT’ for short) to the extent of application of principle of contributory negligence.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 26.07.2009, a newly purchased motorcycle bearing chassis No. S107RP602050 (insured with M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited (Respondent no. 5 herein) was being driven by the deceased Gautam who happened to be a bachelor aged around 22 years (son of claimants, namely Rajo Devi (appellant no. 1 herein) and Prem Chand (appellant no. 2 herein) and on which his brother-in-law, deceased Harpal Singh (his dependants are Harjinder Kaur, Babu Singh and Noordeep (appellant nos. 3, 4 & 5 herein respectively) aged about 30 years, was riding pillion. While they were going on the main road in the area of Police Station Kaithal, an Alto car bearing registration No. HR08-J-3157 (insured with M/s New India Assurance Company Limited (Respondent no. 6 herein)) being driven by Gulzar Singh and in which one Kulwinder Singh (since injured) was sitting next to the car driver, came from the opposite side and a head-on collision took place between the two vehicles, leading to death of both the motorcyclists and injuries to Kulwinder Singh. The owner and driver of alto car, namely, Gulzar Singh, died after sometime due to some other reason and was represented by his LRs, namely Manjeet Kaur, Virender Singh and Sarabjeet Singh (Respondents no. 1, 2 & 3 herein respectively) before the Trial Court.

4. Accordingly, amongst other petitions, two petitions were filed by the petitioners herein before the MACT, Kaithal. The Ld. Tribunal vide its order dated 03.06.2011 opined that the accident in question was a clear-cut case of contributory negligence and accordingly, the dependants of deceased Gautam were held entitled to Rs. 86,000/- which was 50% of total compensation of Rs. 1,72,000/- which was assessed by taking the income of deceased Gautam as Rs. 3,000/- per month after considering him as a casual labourer and applying the multiplier of 9. Similarly, the dependants of deceased Harpal Singh were held entitled to Rs. 2,23,000/- which was 50% of total compensation of Rs. 4,23,000/- which was assessed by taking the income of deceased Harpal as Rs. 3,000/- per month after considering the minimum wages and applying the multiplier of 17.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award of MACT an appeal was preferred by the appellants herein claiming enhancement of compensation amount and the issue of contributory negligence be decided in favour of the appellants herein. The High Court vide the impugned common order has partly allowed the appeal by enhancing the amount of compensation payable to the dependants of deceased Gautam and Harpal Singh by assessing their monthly income as Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- per month and applying the multiplier of 18 and 17 respectively, thereby arriving at total compensation of Rs. 5,52,000/- in case of deceased Gautam and Rs. 6,91,200/- in case of deceased Harpal Singh. The High Court has also enhanced the interest from 7% p.a to 9% p.a. However, the High Court has upheld the applicability of the principle of contributory negligence.

6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the High Court the appellants herein have preferred the present appeals.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is erroneous in not considering the testimony of other eyewitness namely, Suresh Kumar (PW4) and relying upon the testimony of Kulwinder Singh (PW 5) only. It was further submitted that the principle of contributory negligence has been wrongly applied by the High Court in ignorance of the testimony of PW4 who had