Summary
The Court restored the motor accident tribunal’s award to the deceased passenger’s parents. Carrying an additional pillion passenger did not establish contributory negligence without a causal link to the accident or injuries. The employer’s unshaken salary evidence should not have been replaced by minimum wages, and the multiplier depended on the deceased’s age.
Issues
- Whether a traffic-law violation alone established contributory negligence.
- Whether the proved salary could be replaced by minimum wages.
- Whether the deceased’s or the parents’ age governed the multiplier.
Held
- Riding with two others on a motorcycle may violate the law but does not by itself establish contributory negligence. A causal connection to the accident or its impact must be proved; the High Court’s speculation about imbalance had no evidentiary or pleading foundation here. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- The employer’s unshaken testimony and salary certificate had been accepted by the Tribunal. His explanation that the establishment had closed and records were unavailable did not justify rejecting that evidence and substituting a theoretical minimum-wage income. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18)
- The binding larger-Bench decisions approved use of the deceased’s age for the multiplier. For the 23-year-old deceased, the Tribunal correctly applied 18, and the High Court erred in substituting 14 by reference to the claimants’ age. (¶¶ 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs. The High Court’s reduced award was set aside and the Tribunal’s compensation award of Rs.11,66,800 restored.