The court established that compensation must consider future income prospects, especially for students with high potential, and emphasized the need for realistic assessments of earning capacity while applying appropriate multipliers.

JUDGMENT :

AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 31.12.2015, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.241 of 2015, the original respondent no.1/M.S.R.T.C. is in appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988.

So also, feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants in the claim petition are before this Court seeking enhancement in the compensation vide Cross Objection No.200 of 2025.

Since the grievance in both the proceedings is common i.e. “quantum : either excess or deficit” respectively, both the matters are heard together and decided vide this common judgment and order.

Parties are referred to as per their “factual status”for the sake of convenience.

2 . Moot points for consideration :

(i) Applicability of future prospects to deemed income;

(ii) Interest of future prospect;

(iii) Ascertaining income of a student of professional course;

(iv) Method to assess age of the deceased and appreciation of evidence to that effect.

3 . Facts in brief:

3.1 One Ganesh Wagh was proceeding on his bike on 25.02.2015 on Sillod-Aurangabad road at bout 07:00 p.m. A passenger bus owned by M.S.R.T.C. driven by respondent no.4 in the First Appeal dashed the said bike, to which biker namely Ganesh Wagh succumbed. Deceased Ganesh was a meritorious student prosecuting his final year studies in the course of M.B.B.S. at Government Medical College, Aurangabad. The claimants lodged the claim for grant of compensation under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988.

3.2 Upon hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal held that the Bus driver was responsible to cause the accident. As such, full liability of accident was imposed on the bus driver.

3.3 So far as quantum is concern, the claimants examined one Dr. Umeshkumar Shahane (CW-2) at Exhibit- 31 to prove the probable income of the deceased which he could earn soon after clearing M.B.B.S. course. Dr. Shahane had been classmate of the deceased Ganesh and was earning Rs.56,540/- per month salary as Medical Officer in ESIS Hospital. Appointment order and salary slip of Dr. Shahane was proved.

3.4 Placing reliance on the evidence tendered by Dr. Shahane, the claimants averred that income of deceased Ganesh be held atleast @ Rs.56,000/- per month.

3.5 It seems that the MSRTC opposed such argument and submitted that income of deceased Ganesh Wagh cannot be assumed so high considering the state of uncertainty in the life of a person.

3.6 Upon hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal formed opinion that merely because Dr. Shahane was classmate of deceased Ganesh and was getting salary of Rs.56,540/- per month, it cannot be said that deceased Ganesh would also have earned the same job and same salary. Learned Member of the Tribunal opined that it would be fair and reasonable if income of the deceased could be held as Rs.35,000/- per month.

3.7 As such, holding income of the deceased @Rs.35,000/- per month, granting 50% of it towards ‘Future Prospects’ the annual income of the deceased was held @Rs.6,30,000/-. 50 % of the income was deducted towards personal expenses, as the deceased was a bachelor. Although, the Aadhaar Card and SSC/HSC certificate of the deceased Ganesh were on record showing his age as 24, the learned Tribunal held his age at 27 years referring to the Post Mortem Report and Inquest Panchnama. Hence, applying multiplier of M-17, the learned Tribunal fixed the loss of dependency @Rs.53,55,000/-. The learned Tribunal added Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and conventional expenses Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses.

As such, the final compensation arrived @Rs.54,80,000/- inclusive of compensation payable under No Fault Liability.

4 . Moot points raised by the parties :

4.1 MSRTC would object that Ld. Tribunal ought not to have added the component of ‘Future Prospects’ in the income of the deceased as his income was held on notional basis.

4.2 M