The main legal point established in the judgment is the standard of proving negligence in a motor accident case, the calculation of loss of dependency, and the appropriate multiplier to be used for computing compensation.

G. P. MITTAL, J.

1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs.12,62,000/- awarded for the death of M.S.Solanki who died in a motor accident which occurred on 12.08.1990.

2. By the impugned judgment dated 25.01.2006, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) held that the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the DTC bus No.DHP-3438 which was being driven by the First Appellant in a rash and negligent manner. The bus was owned by DTC, the Second Appellant.

3. The deceased M.S. Solanki was working as a Section Officer in UPSC; he was aged about 34 years and was getting a salary of Rs.3358/-. Evidence was led to prove that the deceased would have been promoted as Under Secretary in the scale of 10,000-325-10,200/- and his gross salary w.e.f. 01.01.2005 would have been Rs.23,100/-. The Claims Tribunal after holding that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the DTC bus by the First Appellant, doubled the deceased’s income, adopted the multiplier of ‘17’ to compute the loss of dependency as Rs.12,32,160/-. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards Loss of Love and Affection and Rs.5,000/-towards Funeral Expenses to award the overall compensation of Rs.12,62,000/-.

4. Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:-

(i) The deceased himself was negligent and hit against the bus which was taking a turn towards Vasant Vihar. In any case, there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

(ii) The multiplier of ‘17’ was on the higher side. As per Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier was ‘16’.

5. The Claims Tribunal erred in adding 50% of the projected income in the year 2005 to compute the loss of dependency as it is well settled that the actual income of the deceased on the date of the accident is to be taken into consideration to determine the financial loss to the dependents. At the most, the Claims Tribunal should have made an addition of 50% towards future prospects as the deceased was aged 34 years.

NEGLIGENCE:-

6. The Claims Tribunal discussed the issue of negligence as under:-

“Factum of accident and death of deceased in that accident is not disputed. According to the respondents accident had taken place because of rash and negligent driving of deceased and not because that of respondent No.1. Petitioner No.1 in order to prove rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 stated that deceased was driving scooter at a normal speed following rules and regulations, when the scooter reached at the T-point of Satya Niketan near Gurudawara a DTC bus no. DHP3438 hit the scooter from back in a very fast speed. Bus was driven by Gugan Dass in a vey fast and negligent manner in violation of traffic rules. Bus had dragged the scooter and deceased for about 10ft. Respondent No1. Was not able to control the bus as it was at a high speed. She has been cross examined on behalf of respondents. In her cross examination, she has stated that bus came to a very high speed driven by respondent No.1 and hit the scooter from back side and dragged it for about 10 paces. Front portion of bus had hit the scooter. Deceased was driving scooter at a slow speed.

It is correct that in the petition, it is mentioned that bus had hit the scooter from the front side while petitioner no.1 in her statement stated that scooter was hit by the bus from back side. It is worth important to mention here that accident had taken place in the year 1990. Statement of petitioner was recorded in 1996. Her cross examination was conducted in 1998. Such discrepancies are bound to appear when the statement of a witness will be recorded after a long time. Courts cannot expect a parrot like repatation of version of accident from a witness when the statement of witness recorded after such a long time.

I have also perused site plan prepared by IO. It is correct that he has shown scooter in