The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of negligence, income, and the application of the multiplier in motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2293/2014:-

1. Heard on application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2. Application stands allowed for the reasons stated therein.

3. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

4. With the consent of the parties, the arguments have been heard, at this stage.

5. Both these appeals have been submitted against the judgment and award dated 10.01.2013 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Khetri, Rajasthan (for short ’the Tribunal’) in claim case No.138/2010, by which the claim petition filed by the claimants was allowed and the Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.8,33,016/- to the claimants with interest @ 6% from the date of filing the claim petition. It has been further directed that if the amount of compensation not paid to the claimants within a period of three months, then the claimants were entitled to get interest @9% per annum.

6. Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that instant case is a case of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. He submits that the deceased was negligent in driving the vehicle and the accident has taken place in the mid of the road and the Tribunal has seriously erred in deciding issue No.1 by holding that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. Counsel submits that while assessing the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has determined the income of the deceased as Rs.6600/-, while the gross pay of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs.5871/-.

7. Counsel submits that the accident occurred on 25.09.2010 and the pay slip (Ex.46) for the month of September, 2010 of the deceased indicates that his salary was Rs.5871/- per month. He submits that the income of the deceased has been assessed on higher side. He further submits that the deceased was a trainee officer, even then the future prospects to the tune of 50% has been awarded, while the deceased was not holding a permanent job, so, the claimants are entitled to get future prospects to the tune of 40% only. He prayed that under these circumstances, the interference of this Court is warranted.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants as well as the counsel for the driver and owner opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the Insurance Company.

9. Counsel for the claimants submits that the accident has occurred at the place A, which is extreme left side of the road and the driver i.e. respondent No. 2 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, who caused the accident and thereafter, took the deceased and his vehicle to the place (Marked B) i.e. 10 feet away from the place of accident. While deciding issue No.1, the Tribunal has held that the accident has occurred solely because of negligent driving of respondent No.2. He submits that the deceased was appointed on the post of Attendant-cum-Technician at Steel Authority of India Limited at Bhilai and at the time of his accident, his monthly salary was rs.6600/- per month. Out of which, he was getting Rs.5871/- per month in hand and rest of the amount was deducted under various heads by the department and as the Steel Authority of India Limited is a Government of India Undertaking, the Tribunal has rightly considered the deceased as a permanent salaried person and has rightly granted future prospects to the tune of 50%.

10. He further submits that at the time of accident, the deceased was 27 years of age but the Tribunal was not right in applying the multiplier of 13 looking to the average age of the parents of the deceased. He submits that in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, the multiplier of 17 should have been applied. Learned counsel therefore prayed that under these circumstances, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is