The Court upheld a 50% contributory negligence finding against both drivers while ensuring compensation computation aligns with the deceased's employment status and age, impacting the multiplier used.

JUDGMENT :

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. This appeal has been filed challenging the award dated 06^th August 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“Tribunal”], Dwarka Courts, in Claim Petition No. 213/12/09 [“impugned award”]. The appeal essentially challenges the Tribunal’s conclusion/assessment of 50% contributory negligence of the deceased/driver of the car and 50% negligence on part of the truck driver [respondent no.3]. There are other issues relating to computation of compensation, including the income of the deceased, future prospects and other non-pecuniary elements.

The Incident

2. On 13^th April 2009 at 6:00 a.m., near Hodal Toll Tax, Palwal, Haryana, the deceased, Shri Dishant Arora, was seated on the back seat of an Optra car bearing registration no. DL-4C-AD-4959 and was travelling from Delhi to Agra. The car was being driven by late Shri. Dipankar Malik. The said car met with an accident with a truck bearing registration no. HR-47-D-6492, which was allegedly negligently parked in the middle of the highway without any indication. As a result, fatal injuries were caused to late Shri. Dipankar Malik as well as to late Shri. Dishant Arora.

3. Two claim petitions were filed by the legal heirs of both the late Shri. Dishant Arora and late Shri. Dipankar Malik.Claim Petition No. 213/12/09 was titled as “Ashok Kumar Arora and Anr v. Shri Prakash Chand Saini and Ors” [pertaining to present appeal], whereas the other Claim Petition No. 214/12/09 was titled as “Smt. Geeta Malik &Ors. v. Sh. Nizar Khan &Ors.

4. The present matter relates to the claim petition filed by Ashok Kumar Arora, legal heir (father) of late Shri Dishant Arora. Appellant is the insurer of the car which was being driven by late Shri Dipankar Malik, whereas respondent no.5 is the insurance company which had insured the truck.

5. The driver of the truck was Shri. Prakash Chand Saini, whereas the owner of the truck was Nizar Khan. The driver and the owner, in their written statement, stated that the deceased driver of the car was driving in a rash and negligent manner and had struck against a stationary vehicle [truck]. The driver of the truck stated that he had taken all necessary precautions after parking the vehicle, had switched on the indicators as a precautionary measure, and had also placed green tree leaves on both sides of the truck. They, therefore, denied their liability.

6. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd [respondent no.5], the insurer of the truck, also raised several preliminary objections, including that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased/driver of the car. Appellant herein [IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co.Ltd], being the insurer of the car, stated that car was not the offending vehicle, since the First Investigation Report [‘FIR’] was registered against the driver of the truck.

Impugned Award

7. Shri. Ashok Kumar Arora, was examined as PW-1, Smt. Geeta Malik was examined as PW-2, an officer from the Standard Chartered Bank was examined as PW-3, and eyewitness, Shri. Neeraj Garg, was examined as PW-4. Respondents did not examine any witness.

8. After assessment of the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the accident resulting in the death of late Shri. Dishant Arora and late Dipankar Malik had taken place due to negligence of the truck driver, but also due to contributory/composite negligence of the deceased driver, late Shri. Dipankar Malik, to the extent of 50%. Therefore, the compensation payable to the claimants,