P&H HC Raises Pump Operator’s Family’s Award To Rs 7.4 Lakh, As Driver Failed To Link Permitted Mudguard Ride To Crash

Avtar Singh, aged 29, died in a tractor accident on 14 December 1999.

His wife, minor son and mother claimed compensation, alleging that the tractor driver’s rash and negligent driving caused the accident.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal accepted an eyewitness’s account but attributed 50% contributory negligence to the deceased because he was sitting on the tractor’s mudguard, and awarded compensation accordingly.

The claimants appealed, challenging both the contributory-negligence finding and the amount of compensation.

The High Court assessed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 3,100, based on employment records, and considered the appropriate additions and deductions for calculating dependency.

Contributory negligence must be established by proving an act or omission of the deceased that contributed to causing the accident; the mere fact that a person travelled on a tractor’s mudguard, with the driver’s permission, does not by itself establish such negligence.

For dependency compensation, the Court applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, for the addition of future prospects, and Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121, for selection of the multiplier by reference to the deceased’s age.

The Court also applied a one-third deduction for personal expenses based on the three dependants, and awarded compensation for funeral expenses, loss of estate and consortium.

The Tribunal accepted the eyewitness’s account of the accident, while the driver denied both the accident and that the deceased was riding on the tractor.

The driver did not prove how the deceased’s position on the mudguard contributed to the accident.

Accordingly, the Court held that the Tribunal’s 50% contributory-negligence finding could not stand and attributed the accident solely to the driver’s negligence.

For compensation, the Court relied on the employment records showing monthly earnings of Rs. 3,100 and rejected uncorroborated evidence of additional income from other occupations.

It added 40% future prospects, applied a multiplier of 17 for the deceased’s age of 29, and deducted one-third for personal expenses, calculating loss of dependency at Rs. 5,90,172.

It then added Rs. 1,50,000 under conventional heads.

The Court set aside the finding of contributory negligence and enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 7,40,172, an increase of Rs. 5,41,172 over the Tribunal’s award.

Interest at 7.5% was granted on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing the claim petition, except for conventional heads, on which interest was payable from August 2017; apportionment and liability remained as directed in the Tribunal’s award.