IMPORTANT POINT
In the case of the deceased employed abroad, it would be just to adopt income of a person working in similar position in India.

Judgment

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-claimants against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2013 passed in FAO No. 1652 of 2010 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, wherein the High Court has partly allowed the appeal by enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs. 17,10,000/- from Rs. 2,00,000/- as awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (for short 'the Tribunal') in its award.

3. The necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case with a view to ascertain whether the Appellants are entitled for further enhancement of compensation as prayed in this appeal.

On the intervening night of 29/30.9.2006, Surinder Singh, Chander Singh and Bijender Singh were travelling in a car bearing registration No. CH-03-P-8405 being driven by Jaspal Singh (Respondent No. 1) and owned by Karnail Singh (Respondent No. 2) which hit a car bearing registration No. DL-9CA-7393 being driven by Vikas Khanna near Piao-Maniari on G.T. Road, Sonepat. All the injured were shifted to General Hospital, Sonepat. Surinder Singh-husband of Appellant No. 1 and father of Appellant No. 2 succumbed to his injuries on 04.10.2006.

4. The Appellants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, Sonepat claiming Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as compensation on the ground that the deceased was 32 years of age at the time of his death, and he had been working as an Indian Cook in Moghul Tandoor Restaurant, Bruckenkopfstr, 1/2 Heidelberg, Germany and was earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month and that Rs. 1,00,000/- was spent on his treatment, transportation and last rites.

5. The Tribunal on consideration of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, passed an award of Rs. 2,00,000/- with an interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

6. Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Appellants filed FAO No. 1652 of 2010 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, wherein the High Court enhanced the compensation amount to Rs. 17,10,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellants filed this appeal.

7. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the courts below ought to have appreciated that the deceased was about 32 years of age and was employed as an Indian Cook in Moghul Tandoor Restaurant, Bruckenkopfstr, 1/2 Heidelberg, Germany, earning about 1145 Euros per month.

8. Further, it has been contended by the learned Counsel that the High Court ought not to have arbitrarily fixed the income of the deceased at the time of his death at Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum, without properly appreciating the facts and evidence on record and assigning valid reasons, while fixing the same. It is contended by the learned Counsel that this Court has held that courts have the power to fix any reasonable amount in favour of the claimants in the absence of documentary proof of monthly income of the deceased and also that if the amount claimed by the claimants was reasonable, then the same could be relied on by the courts & award just and reasonable compensation. Further, it is contended by the learned Counsel that in the instant case, the Appellants had produced the certificates showing the income of the deceased as well as the income tax payments made by the deceased for the year ending 2006, which ought to have been considered by the courts below while determining the income of the deceased to calculate the loss of dependency of the Appellants.

9. Further, it is contended that the High Court ought to have considered the future prospects of the deceased to be added to the actual income of the deceased while calculating the loss of dependency as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.

10. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondent-Ins