The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in motor accident claims, including the assessment of contributory negligence, computation of various heads of compensation, and the application of relevant statutory rules.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY BHANOT, J.

(I) INTRODUCTION:

1. These two appeals arise out of the same accident and an award made by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Allahabad on 31.05.2014, in M.A.C.P. No. 770 of 2011 (Smt. Nirmala Kanaujia @ Nirmala Devi and Others vs. U.P.S.R.T.C.).

(II) Case of the claimants and respondents before the learned tribunal:

2. Briefly the case of the claimants before the learned tribunal was that the deceased died of injuries sustained in an accident which occurred on 04.06.2011, and was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the UPSRTC Bus No. UP-70-AT-6658. The deceased was driving a motorcycle on the G.T. Road, Hatwa Crossing, Kaushambi when the offending bus collided with the motorcyle. The deceased was 36 years of age the time of the accident. The claimants were dependant on the deceased. The UPSRTC resisted the claim by filing a written statement. Both parties adduced evidence in the trial.

(III) Compensation awarded by the learned tribunal:

3. The learned tribunal in the impugned judgment dated 21.05.2014 awarded compensation which is depicted in the tabulated form hereunder:

4. FAFO No. 3263 of 2014 (U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Smt. Nirmala Kanaujia @ Nirmala Devi and Others) has been filed by UPSRTC challenging the award dated 31.5.2014 passed by the Tribunal. FAFO No. 2556 of 2014 (Smt. Nirmala Kanaujia alias Nirmala Devi and Others U.P.S.R.T.C.) has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.

Arguments of learned counsels:

5. Various grounds have been taken in the appeal by the UPSRTC. However, Shri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant on behalf of appellant-UPSRTC (in FAFA No. 3263 of 2014) only presses two grounds against the impugned award. Firstly, it was a case of contributory negligence, and the learned Tribunal erred in law fixing the entire liability on the appellant. Secondly, incorrect multiplier has been applied in the impugned award.

6. Per contra, in the appeal for enhancement (FAFO No. 2556 of 2014), Mrs. Deepali Srivastava, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that this was not a case of contributory negligence. Calling attention to various fault lines in the impugned award, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that deduction towards personal expenses was excessive and unsustainable in law, future prospects were unlawfully denied and impermissible deductions were made by the learned Tribunal in the salary of the deceased. Lastly, the amounts granted under conventional heads were contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 680.

(IV) Issues for Consideration:

7. After advancing their arguments, learned counsels for the respective parties agree that only the following questions fall for consideration in these appeals:

(A) Whether the accident resulted from contributory negligence on part of the deceased motorcycle driver?

(B) Whether while determining the compensation the lea