IMPORTANT POINT
Death in motor accident – Quantum of compensation must encompass future prospects of victim.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. Gavai, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 31st January, 2020, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CMA No. 2518 of 2016.

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under:

3.1 On 22nd May, 2010, S. Sathiyanarayan was riding on a Bajaj Avenger motorcycle, bearing registration No. TN­04­S­6492, at GST Road, Tambaram. While he was travelling from the south to north direction by the western side of the road, a bus owned by M/s Adhiparasakthi Engineering College (respondent no. 1 herein), bearing registration No. TN­21­H­2727, which was being driven rashly and negligently, came from the same direction and dashed against his motor cycle from the backside, thus dragging him under the wheels of the bus. S. Sathiyanarayan perished on the spot.

3.2 Thereafter, the bereaved parents of the deceased, who are the appellants herein, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Poonamallee (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being M.C.O.P. No. 1201 of 2010, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/­ with interest, on account of the death of their son.

3.3 The Tribunal, noting that the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan was, at the time of the accident, twenty-three years of age and a student in the second year of the MBA course at SRM University, passed an award amounting to Rs.7,48,052/­ as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. Pertinently, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/­ per month, since he was not earning any salary at the time of the accident.

4. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation so awarded, the appellants herein carried an appeal to the High Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.

5. Noting that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal was meagre, the High Court enhanced the notional income to a sum of Rs.10,000/­ per month. Thus, the High Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.7,48,052/­ to Rs.16,27,000/­. Within that amount, the High Court also enhanced the amount of loss of dependency, loss of love and affection as well as funeral expenses, and further granted an amount of Rs.15,000/­ as loss of estate.

6. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.

7. We have heard Mr. T. Harish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. A.K. De, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2­United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

8. Mr. T. Harish Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that both the Tribunal and the High Court have grossly erred in calculating the notional monthly income of the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan at the rate of Rs.10,000/­. He submits that the High Court ought to have considered that S. Vasanthi ­ appellant No. 1, in an affidavit filed by her before the Tribunal, had stated that two classmates of her deceased son would go on to get employment with reputed companies in India on a monthly salary of approximately Rs.40,000/­. The learned counsel submits that appellant No. 1 had, in fact, produced the salary certificates of the said two classmates with her affidavit. The learned counsel therefore submits that the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan, being an engineering graduate who was pursuing an MBA degree to further his career, would have attracted well­paying jobs had he been alive. The learned counsel therefore submits that the notional monthly income of the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan should be enhanced to Rs.42842/­. The learned Counsel relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali and Another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and Another, (2022) 1 SCC 317, in support of his contention.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contend that both the Tri