IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Death in motor accident – Multiplier must be determined by age of deceased, not by age of dependants.
(2) Injury in motor accident – Calculation of functional disability depends on assessing victim’s earning capacity in open, competitive market, rather than on retention in a specific, highly accommodated role.

JUDGMENT :

S.V.N. BHATTI, J.

1. The Civil Appeals arise from the Order dated 24.01.2019 in FAO Nos. 3607 and 5444 of 2017 (O&M) of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

2. Civil Appeal No. 12085 of 2026 is at the instance of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, and Civil Appeal No. 12086 of 2026 is at the instance of the Claimant.

3. On 10.04.2011 at around 05.30 P.M., an accident occurred near Brijghat Bridge between a motorcycle and a heavy goods vehicle bearing No. HR-55-2812. The motorcycle was driven by Sushant Prabhakaran, and Priyanka Das/Claimant was the pillion rider. The FIR narrates the accident, and the Chargesheet states that the heavy goods vehicle hit the motorcycle, causing the riders to fall, and the truck ran over Sushant Prabhakaran, resulting in his instantaneous death. The Claimant/pillion rider sustained grievous multiple injuries to vital parts of the body. FIR No. 198, dated 10.04.2011, was registered at Police Station Gadmukteshwar on the complaint received from passerby/third party Radhe Shyam Kaushik. The Civil Appeals are confined to the claim for compensation arising from the demise of Sushant Prabhakaran. At the time of his death, Late Sushant Prabhakaran was 33 years old and employed as Manager, Contact Centre, at Ericsson India Private Limited, DLF Cyber City, Gurugram. Sahadeov Prasad is the father, and Sandhya Prasad is the mother of the deceased. It was pleaded in the Claim Petition that the Claimant was the widow of Sushant Prabhakaran.

4. MACT Petition No. 9 of 2014 was filed by Priyanka Das, the injured pillion rider, claiming compensation of Rs. 5 crores, together with interest at 18% per annum. The parents of the deceased were arrayed as Proforma Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in MACT Petition No. 9 of 2014 before the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram (“The Tribunal”).

5. The Claimant, in support of the claim for Rs.5 crores in compensation, primarily relied on the evidence of Ajay Kumar Chadha, PW-11, and the salary slips of Sushant Prabhkar, marked as Exhibit PW-11/A, which evidenced the deceased’s income/salary at the time of the accident. The Tribunal, on 03.04.2017, awarded Rs.82,56,152/- and apportioned as follows:

6. On negligence and the cause of the accident, the Tribunal held that the determination of compensation before the Tribunal is summary in nature and that negligence is evaluated on the preponderance of probabilities, rather than the strict criminal standard of “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. PW-9, the injured pillion rider, has deposed to the circumstances leading to the accident. The manner in which the motorcycle was crushed beneath the truck’s tyres established that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver examined as RW-2. The Insurer’s defence that the terms of the Insurance Policy have been violated was rejected, inasmuch as the Insurer contended that the Vehicle No. HR-55-2812 did not have a valid fitness certificate. This contention is disbelieved upon appreciation of the contemporaneous Registration Certificate of the vehicle marked as Exhibit-R6. Consequently, the Tribunal fastened liability of Rs.82,56,152/- on the Insurer.

7. The Tribunal, in apportioning compensation, did not accept Priyanka Das’s claim that she was the legally wedded wife of Sushant Prabhakaran. There is no documentary evidence of the factum of their marriage. While rejecting her status as a legally wedded wife, the Tribunal appreciated Exhibits P-13 and P-14, i.e., employment records, in asserting the status she claimed as the wife of the deceased Sushant Prabhakaran. In the circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that Priyanka Das had listed the deceased, Sushant Prabhakaran, as her fiancé. The Tribunal considered Priyanka Das’s independent standing and recorded that she was not