The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of negligence, contributory negligence, and composite negligence in motor accident compensation cases, along with the calculation of compensation and deductions for income tax and other expenses.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri. Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Amar Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent-Claimants. This appeal mainly relates to compensation and therefore the owner, driver of the tempo and car owner and driver will not be concerned and therefore by consent of both the learned counsels we propose to dispose of this appeal as it relates to submission on negligence and only quantum.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the appellant-Insurance Company challenges the award dated 04.10.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahjahanpur, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in M.A.C.P. No. 254 of 2018.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 14.05.2018 at about 8:00 p.m. Indresh Kumar Singh was traveling in a tempo bearing no. UP-32 CN-9011, at the same time driver of a car coming from opposite side bearing no. UP-32 HN-2292 driving his car negligently and rashly hits the tempo in which Indresh Kumar Singh was traveling and as a result of which Indresh Kumar Singh fell on the road and driver of the car drove the wheel of the car on his head and the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Injured Indresh Kumar Singh was taken to the Trauma Centre by the police where he was declared dead by the doctors.

4. The deceased was 41 years and 6 months of age at the time of accident. He was working as a Sub-Inspector in Police department and was earning Rs. 48,159/- p.m. He was survived by his father, widow and a son. The Tribunal has considered his income to be Rs. 48,159/- p.m. deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, granted multiplier of 14, granted Rs. 40,000/- towards love and affection, granted Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of property and granted Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and ultimately assessed the total compensation to be Rs. 70,81,956/-.

5. The term negligence means failure to exercise care towards others which a reasonable and prudent person would in a circumstance or taking action which such a reasonable person would not. Negligence can be both intentional or accidental which is normally accidental. More particularly, it connotes reckless driving and the injured must always prove that the either side is negligent. If the injury rather death is caused by something owned or controlled by the negligent party then he is directly liable otherwise the principle of “res ipsa loquitur” meaning thereby “the things speak for itself” would apply.

6. The principle of contributory negligence has been discussed time and again. A person who either contributes or author of the accident would be liable for his contribution to the accident having taken place.

7. The Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal from Order No. 1818 of 2012 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Renu Singh and Others) decided on 19.7.2016 has held as under:

“16. Negligence means failure to exercise required degree of care and caution expected of a prudent driver. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon the considerations, which ordinarily regulate conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is not always a question of direct evidence. It is an inference to be drawn from proved facts. Negligence is not an absolute term, but is a relative one. It is rather a comparative term. What may be negligence in one case may not be so in another. Where there is no duty to exercise care, negligence in the popular sense has no legal consequence. Where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which would be reasonably foreseen likely to caused physical injury to person. The degree of care required, of course, depends upon facts in each case. On these broad principles, the negligence of drivers is required to be assessed.

17. It would be seen that burden of proof for contributory negligence on the part of deceased has to be dis