J U D G M E N T

1. This appeal has been filed by Oriental Insurance Company Limited [“the Insurance Company”] against an award dated 16.12.2017, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“the Tribunal”] in Suit No. 4267/2016. By the impugned award, the Insurance Company was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 13,75,000/- to respondent No. 1, who was the claimant before the Tribunal.

2. The proceedings before the Tribunal arose out of a road traffic accident which took place on 26.04.2009, at about 11:45 PM. The claimant was travelling on a motorcycle [bearing registration No. DL-3S-BK-5321] as a pillion-rider. The motorcycle was being driven by Mr. Rakesh Kumar [respondent No. 4 herein]. At a location situated at the roundabout of DND Flyover and Ring Road, near New Friends Colony, New Delhi, the motorcycle hit a parked truck [bearing registration No. HR-38E-6159] [“the offending vehicle”]. It was alleged that the offending vehicle was parked in the middle of the road and was not visible in darkness. The claimant and respondent No. 4 both sustained injuries as a result of the accident.

3. The accident resulted in registration of an FIR bearing No. 193/2009, dated 27.04.2009 in Police Station New Friends Colony. Although no accused was named in the FIR, a chargesheet was later filed, on 14.07.2011, against Mr. Sushil Kumar, who was the driver of the offending vehicle [respondent No. 2 herein].

4. The claimant filed a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [“MV Act”] before the Tribunal, and a detailed accident report was also submitted by the police authorities. In the said proceedings, the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle were arrayed as respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and Mr. Rakesh Kumar [owner and driver of the motorcycle] was arrayed as respondent No. 4.

5. The Tribunal returned a finding of rash and negligent driving against the driver of the offending vehicle, and awarded compensation of Rs.13,75,000/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum, in favour of the claimant. The award was made under the following heads:

6. The Insurance Company, which was the insurer of the offending vehicle, was directed to pay the compensation amount, and is in appeal before this Court.

B. SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

7. I have heard Mr. Pankaj Seth, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and Ms. Vaishnavi Rao, learned counsel for the claimant.

8. In support of the appeal, Mr. Seth submitted as follows:

a. The Medico-Legal Case [“MLC”] of the claimant indicated that he was under the influence of alcohol, and the amount of compensation should therefore have been reduced for contributory negligence.

b. While computing loss of future income, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16, which was applicable to the claimant’s age at the time of the accident [35 years]. However, the Tribunal also granted loss of income for the period of treatment, which was held to be 62 months. As the claimant has thus been compensated for loss of income for the period of 62 months from the date of the accident, Mr. Seth submitted that the loss of future income ought to have been computed for the period thereafter, i.e. from the age of 40 onwards, for which the applicable multiplier would have been 15.

c. The Tribunal erroneously assesse