Sketchy accident evidence justified equal apportionment of negligence between both drivers.

On 14 December 1997, a car and a truck collided. The car’s owner-driver was seriously injured, and his wife, son, and another occupant, Purshottambhai, died

The Tribunal dismissed the claims on the ground that the car’s owner-driver was negligent. He accepted that decision; the present appeal was brought by the occupant’s claimant(s).

On appeal, the claimants relied on evidence of Purshottambhai’s partnership income, including the partnership deed and the firm’s profit-and-loss account.

Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the occupant’s claim where the evidence did not clearly establish how the collision occurred and negligence could be attributed to both drivers.

Whether the claimants were entitled to compensation based on the deceased’s partnership income, future prospects, and the applicable multiplier.

The Court applied the principle of composite negligence: where the negligence of multiple tortfeasors contributes to an accident, a claimant may recover compensation attributable to the liable tortfeasor(s), with responsibility apportioned on the evidence.

A police charge-sheet is prima facie evidence of negligence, but does not determine the issue; negligence must be assessed from the surrounding circumstances.

For calculating compensation, the Court relied on National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for adding future prospects to income.

It applied a 25% addition for future prospects, a one-fourth deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 14 for the deceased’s age of 42.

Although a charge-sheet had been filed against the car’s owner-driver, the Court treated it only as prima facie evidence.

The truck driver, an eyewitness, was not examined, and the evidence about the collision was inconsistent: the pleadings alleged a head-on collision, while a cross-examination suggestion indicated that the truck had entered the highway from a side road.

Given this inconclusive evidence, the Court attributed 50% negligence to each driver.

It accepted the deceased’s annual partnership income as Rs.81,760, added 25% for future prospects, deducted one-fourth for personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 14. The resulting total compensation, including conventional heads, was Rs.13,25,990.

The Court assessed compensation at Rs.13,25,990 with interest at 9% from the date of the claim petition until realization, payable by deposit within ten weeks of receipt of the order.

It held the truck driver liable for 50% of the compensation and stated that the claimants could pursue the owner of the car for the balance.

The deposited amount was to be disbursed to the claimants by NEFT/RTGS after verification.