IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that negligence must be proven with direct evidence, and reliance on unproven documents is insufficient to determine liability in motor vehicle accidents.

JUDGMENT :

Saral Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The claim petition has been instituted by claimants/appellants praying for compensation for the death of one Shubhash Chandra Shukla who was driving a Maruti Car No. MH 002L/3533 and met with an accident with Tata 207 DI truck No. UP70 Y/9264.

3. Challenging the award, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tribunal has erred in law in holding 50% negligence of the deceased in the accident. It is submitted that the claimants/appellants proved the accident by producing PW-1 Shushma Devi and PW-2 Sri Ram Ji Shukla who were eye-witnesses of the accident and deposed before the Tribunal that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck No. UP70 Y/9264, therefore, the Tribunal has erred in law in holding the negligence of the deceased on the basis of the site plan of the accident which was not proved in accordance with the law. It is further contended that in the absence of any evidence in rebuttal to the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, the Tribunal has erred in law in placing reliance upon the site plan of the accident to conclude 50% negligence of the deceased in the accident. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of Jiju Kuruvila and others v. Kunjujamma Mohan and others, (2013) 9 SCC 166, Kumari Kiran through her father Harinarayan v. Sajjan Singh and others, 2014 (4) TAC 684 (SC) and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chamundeswari and others, 2021 (0) SC 533.

4. He further contends that no amount towards future prospect has been awarded to the claimants/appellants whereas they are entitled to 40% towards future prospect in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (16) SCC 680. It is further submitted that there were six dependents upon the deceased, therefore, considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, 2009 (6) SCC 121, Tribunal should have deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent insurance company would contend that in the instant case, the site plan was filed by the claimants/appellants, and once they relied upon the site plan to prove the accident, they cannot resile and say that the site plan could not be read in evidence to determine the negligence of the deceased in the accident. It is further submitted that the law is well-settled that if a party brings a document on record, then that document has to be read in evidence as a whole and the party who brings the document on record, cannot take a plea that a part of document which supports his case can be read but the other part adverse to him may be ignored. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in relying upon the site plan of the accident to conclude 50% negligence of the deceased in the accident. In support of his case, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla and others, 2007 AIR SCW 3591.

6. He has further contended that the Tribunal has erred in law in applying the multiplier of 16 whereas considering the age of the deceased, the Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 15 to compute the compensation.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. The deceased was driving the Maruti Car No. MH 002L/3533 which met with the accident with truck No. UP70 Y/9264. PW-1 Shushma Shukla and PW-2 Sri Ram Ji Shukla were eye-witnesses of the accident and deposed before the Tribunal that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck NoUP70 Y/9264. The insurance company did not produce any ev