The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1270 to adjust the compensation amounts and determine negligence.

1. The above-captioned two cross appeals are directed against impugned Award of 19th April, 2017 vide which compensation of Rs.31,03,624/- with interest @ 9% per annum has been awarded to Claimants on account of death of a bank peon/attendant-Chander Kumar, aged 55 years. The above-captioned first appeal is by the Insurer to seek exoneration from paying compensation granted, whereas in the above-captioned second appeal, Claimants seek enhancement in the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. Since these two appeals arise out of common Award, therefore, both the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned Award, is as under:-

“Brief facts of the case are that on 17.10.2015 at about 10.00 AM, deceased alongwith Damanpreet Singh, Anish Sharma, Rahul and Vaibhav were going in car bearing registration No. DL-6CN-4727 which was driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. When the car reached on GT Road Jalwehra Village, National Highway, it hit against a truck from behind due to high speed. After the accident, occupants of car were taken to hospital. Deceased Chander Kumar @ Chander Kumar Upadhyay was taken to PGI, Chandigarh where he died on the date of accident itself.”

3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) has calculated the loss of dependency while taking income of deceased at Rs.28,973.40/- (rounded off to Rs.28,975/-). No addition towards ‘future prospects’ has been made and one-fourth has been deducted towards the ‘personal expenses’ of deceased and by applying the multiplier of 11, the ‘loss of dependency’ has been assessed at Rs.28,68,624/-. Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded under the head of ‘Love and Affection’ and ‘Funeral Expenses’ of Rs.25,000/- have been granted by the Tribunal. Under the head ‘Loss of Estate’ compensation of Rs.10,000/- has been granted. The break-up of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under:-      

4. The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for Insurer is on the ground that negligence of driver of the insured vehicle does not stand proved. So, it is submitted that the claim petition of Claimants ought to be dismissed.

5. On the contrary, learned counsel for Claimants supports the impugned Award and submits that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is inadequate and it needs to be suitably enhanced in view of Salary Slip (Ex. PW2/1). It is further submitted that addition towards “future prospects” has to be 15% in view of Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1270. So, it is submitted that the compensation granted by the Tribunal ought to be reasonably enhanced.

6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the evidence on record and the decision cited, I find that this fatal accident was witnessed by Raju (PW-3), who in his evidence has not exactly stated as to how the accident took place. There is one line cross-examination of this witness (PW-3) regarding his not knowing anything about the accident. During the course of hearing, Insurer’s counsel has sought to place reliance upon the copy of the FIR to point out that the offending vehicle i.e. truck had hit the insured car from the side, which resulted in happening of this accident.

7. On the negligence aspect, I find that FIR of this case was registered on the basis of the statement of the deceased and its perusal clearly reveals that the negligence was of the truck driver and not the driver of insured vehicle in question. Ther