Notional income for deceased third-year homeopathy student fixed at Rs.30,000/- monthly despite below-average marks, as academic performance does not dictate professional earning potential; reasonable reality-based guesswork allowed with 40% future prospects.

JUDGMENT :

M. M. SATHAYE, J.

1. First Appeal No. 924 of 2022 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 16.12.2021 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT), Sangli in Motor Accident Claims Petition (MACP) No. 133 of 2016. By the impugned judgment and award, the Appellant Insurance Company is held liable jointly and severally with the owner and driver of the offending vehible to pay to Claimant No. 1 (Smt. Malan Anil Holkar) alone, an amount of Rs.21,93,000/- including no fault liability amount with interest at the rate of 7% p. a. from the date of claim application till realization of the amount. The same judgment and award is challenged by the Claimants by filing First Appeal No. 1608 of 2025 seeking enhancement in the amount awarded.

2. Thus, the Insurance Company as well as the Claimants are in cross appeals, one seeking reduction and the other seeking enhancement respectively.

3. Few facts necessary for disposal of these Appeals are as under :

3.1. The Claimants are mother, father and brother of deceased Alan Holkar, who was 23 years student taking education in BHMS course in third year.

3.2. On 7.11.2014 at 12.30 noon, the motorcycle being driven by deceased was dashed by the offending truck (AP-15-X-6303) which was owned by Opponent No.1, driven by Opponent No. 2 and insured with Opponent No. 3 in claim petition. Rs.1,32,25,000/- was claimed as compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’ for short). The owner and driver did not appear before the Tribunal and an order of ex-parte-hearing was passed against them.

3.3. The Insurance Company filed written statement denying inter alia the age and amount of compensation claim. It was contended that the offending truck was being driven slowly and it is the deceased who was driving in rash and negligent manner, who dashed on the cleaner side of the vehicle, hence entirely responsible for the Accident.

3.4. Claimant No. 1 led oral evidence along with documentary evidence. The Insurance Company did not lead any evidence despite sufficient opportunity granted.

3.5. The learned Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that Rs.20,000/- can be taken as the income of deceased. Deduction of ½ was applied because the deceased was unmarried and considering the age of deceased, which was 23 years, multiplier of 18 is applied.

4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that it has come of record that the deceased was a below-average student taking education of homeopathy (BHMS) and as such, amount assessed by the Tribunal of Rs.20,000/- per month is on higher side. He submitted that considering the evidence on record amount, Rs. 10,000/- per month would have been appropriate and future prospects of 40% can be applied. He relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meena Pawaia and Others vs. Ashraf Ali And Others [(2021) 17 SCC 148] in support of his case. He further submitted that the Claimant No. 1 is a pensioner lady, Claimant No. 2 has expired and Claimant No. 3 is an employed brother of deceased and therefore none of them can be considered as dependents.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Claimants submitted that this is a fit case for enhancement because the deceased was aspiring to become homeopathy doctor and considering the claim made of Rs.40,000/- per month, the Tribunal was not justified to conclude Rs.20,000/- as monthl