P MOHANDOSS Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellants are parents of the deceased- C. Suresh who died in a Motor accident which took place on 13/12/2009.

(3.) We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the Insurer. Learned counsel for the appellants would raise three contentions before us. In the first place, he would contend that the High Court has erred in applying the multiplier 13 and that it should be 17. This is for the reason that the multiplier has been arrived at by the High Court not based on the age of the victim but based on the age of the parents. Secondly, he would submit that the appellants are also entitled to enhancement on the basis that the future prospects which should have been granted under the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has not been granted. Thirdly, he would contend that the High Court has erred in affirming the view taken by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short -MACT-) that there was contributory negligence. He would contend that evidence of PW-11 would show that the fault lay with the driver of the Truck and there was no fault on the part of the driver of the Car in which the deceased was traveling. He attacks the finding by pointing out that even if one of the persons had consumed alcohol, being drunk could not have been attributed on presumption to the driver. The deceased was traveling in a taxi.