authenticity,theTribunalhas rightly assessedthemonthlyincomeof 'the deceased as Rs.4;500/— i.e. Rs.54,000/— p.a. The Tribunal has further rightly deducted 1/3rd from it towards personal and living expenses of the deceased for assessing the annual loss of However,theTribunalwas dependencywhichcomestoRs.36,000/—. not right inapplyingthemultiplierof15andinfact,asperguidelinesof the Apex CourtinthemattersofSarlaVerma(Smt.)andothersVs 7(2009) Delhi Transport Corporationandanother; 6 SCC 121, it should havebeen14.Thus,afterapplyingthemultiplierof14,thetotal loss of dependencycomestoRs.5,04,000/-.Asregardstheamountof Rs.18,500/-awarded under the conventional heads, in the facts and V circumstancesofthecase,thesameappearstobeverymuchonthe lower side and is, therefore, enhanced to Rs.50,000/—.As such, the total amount ofcompensationcomestoRs.5.54lacs. 10. So far as thefindingoftheTribunalwithregardtocontributory negligent onthedeceased is concerned, it is a settled principleoflaw that the onusof proofregardingcontributorynegligenceisontheparty who alleges the same. The party taking a plea of contributory negligence onthe part of the victim/deceasedmustleadevidencewith regard theretoandinabsencethereof,suchpleacannotbeaccepted. ’The owner of the offending vehicle muststate specifically thatthere was some casual connection of the deceased with the damage suffered byhimtoholdthattheconductofthedeceasedamountedto contributory negligence. Similarly, there' had to be some evidence showing absenceofreasonablecareonthepartofthedeceasedfor his own safetywhichcontributedtothedamage.However,noevidence has been led bytheowneroftheoffendingvehicle/respondentNo.1 to prove the factum of contributory negligence on the part of thedeceased.ThustheTribunalwas not right in holding the deceased 'in contributory negligent causing the accident and on the basis of evidence available on record, respondent No.1 alone is held responsible forcausingtheaccidentandtherefore, it is he who isliable to pay the entirecompensation.
