Tanker driver’s negligence alone caused the accident; the deceased bore no contributory negligence.

On 27 February 2003, a collision occurred between a tanker and a Maruti Zen car, resulting in the death of Vivek S. Garg, aged 33 years, an engineer and Senior Sales Officer with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.

His wife, two minor children, and parents filed a motor accident claim petition.

The Tribunal held the tanker driver and the deceased contributorily negligent in the ratio of 80:20, assessed the deceased’s monthly income at ₹24,610, applied a multiplier of 16, and awarded ₹42,80,700 as compensation.

The Insurance Company challenged the finding of only 20% negligence against the deceased and contended that income tax ought to have been deducted from his salary.

The claimants disputed the finding of contributory negligence and sought enhancement for future prospects.

In a connected appeal concerning damage to the tanker, the Tribunal had apportioned negligence equally between the tanker driver and the deceased.

Whether the deceased, Vivek S. Garg, was contributorily negligent in causing the accident and, if so, to what extent?

Whether the compensation required recalculation after deducting tax from the deceased’s salary and adding future prospects?

Whether the owner of the tanker was entitled to recover damages from the insurer of the Maruti Zen, or whether the tanker’s insurer alone was liable?

The Court applied the principles governing negligence and contributory negligence in motor accident claims, holding that liability must correspond to the party whose negligent driving caused the accident.

It applied the settled rule that income tax and other legally deductible amounts must be excluded from the deceased’s income for computing loss of dependency.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the Court added 50% future prospects for a deceased aged 33 years in permanent employment and applied the appropriate conventional compensation heads, including consortium, funeral expenses, transportation charges, and loss of estate.

The Court further applied the established multiplier method, using a multiplier of 16 and deducting one-fourth of the income towards the deceased’s personal expenses because there were five dependants.

The Court found that the tanker driver had seen the Maruti Zen from a distance of approximately 50–60 feet but nevertheless collided with it, dragged it backwards for about 120 feet, and thereafter overturned the tanker.

These circumstances, together with the chargesheet filed against the tanker driver, demonstrated that the tanker was being driven negligently and at excessive speed.

Accordingly, there was no evidentiary basis for attributing any negligence to the deceased, and the Tribunal’s 20% apportionment was set aside.

For quantum, the Court accepted the gross salary of ₹25,133 but deducted ₹2,600 towards income tax, surcharge, and professional tax, resulting in a monthly income of ₹22,533.

It then added 50% towards future prospects, arriving at ₹33,800 per month; deducted one-fourth for personal expenses; and calculated the loss of dependency at ₹48,67,200 using a multiplier of 16.

After adding ₹2,60,000 towards consortium and conventional heads and ₹38,200 towards funeral expenses, transportation charges, and loss of estate, the total compensation was recalculated at ₹51,65,400.

Since the tanker driver alone was negligent, the tanker’s insurer was held responsible for the entire vehicle-damage award in the connected appeal.

The total compensation payable to the claimants was enhanced to ₹51,65,400, resulting in an enhancement of ₹8,84,700 over the Tribunal’s award, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

First Appeal No. 3597 of 2011 filed by the Insurance Company was dismissed, while Cross Objection No. 98 of 2013 filed by the claimants was partly allowed.

First Appeal No. 2824 of 2010 concerning tanker damage was allowed; the tanker’s insurer was directed to bear the entire vehicle-damage liability, and the amount deposited by the appellants was ordered to be refunded.

The enhanced amount was directed to be deposited within ten weeks, and the compensation was to be apportioned between the widow and the two minor children in the ratio of 60:20:20, the parents having relinquished their claim in favour of the children.