The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal arrived at the sum of Rs 11,66,800 as total compensation payable after deducting 10% of the compensation on account of contributory negligence in as much as there were 3 persons on the motorcycle when a speeding car hit it. The employer of the victim was examined for confirmation on salary and a multiplier of 18 was applied based on the age of the victim.
On an appeal under sec 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the insurance company, the High Court confirmed the reduction on contributory negligence but reduced the quantum of compensation on the basis of minimum wages as the employer did not produce any records to substantiate the quantum of salary. It further took the multiplier as 14 instead of 18 on the basis of the ratio laid down by this court in U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362 and fixed the compensation payable at Rs. 414000.
Held that in the absence of any evidence to show that the wrongful act on the part of the deceased victim contributed either to the accident or to the nature of injuries sustained, the victim could not have been held guilty of contributory negligence thus reduction of 10% is clearly unjustified. On the second issue, it was held that the interference made by the High Court with the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the monthly income of the deceased was uncalled for so long as the testimony of the employer remained unshaken. On the third issue, it was held that Munna Lal Jain (2015) 6 SCC 347 which is of larger Bench binds us. It was held in para 37 of the Report in Reshma Kumari (2013) 9 SCC 65 that the wide variations in the selection of multiplier in fatal accident cases can be avoided if Sarla Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121 is followed. In Munna Lal Jain which is also by a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges, the court observed in para 11 as follows:
“11. … Whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the dependents or that of the deceased has been hanging fire for some time, but that has been given a quietus by another three-judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari. It was held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. …”
(2020) 3 SCC 57- Mohammed Siddique and Another v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others.