JUDGMENT

G. P. Mittal, J. (ORAL)

1. By virtue of this judgment, the Cross-Objections which are registered as MAC APPL.238/2012 and MAC APP.249/2012 are being decided as common question of law and facts is involved in both the Appeals.

2. Two young girls Disha Tognatta and Chhavi Aggarwal, who were the Second year students of BE in Information Technology Engineering and BE in Electronics & Communication Engineering respectively from Modi College of Engineering & Technology, Sikar, lost their life in a motor accident which occurred on 19.11.2004. Both the girls were quite brilliant in their studies. In 10th standard Disha scored 79% marks in aggregate and 90% in Science subjects with an 'A' Grade in all the subjects. She passed her 12th standard from a highly reputed Institution i.e. MGD Girls School, Jaipur. She was involved in extra curricular activities in the fields of music and communication skills and in sports. Her father was a qualified Engineer and mother was a Post Graduate in Hotel Management.

3. Chhavi Aggawal scored 86% marks with an 'A+' Grade in all subjects in her 10th class examination. She completed her schooling from various reputed schools i.e. National Public School, Bangalore; Army School, Ambala; Air Force Bal Bharti, New Delhi and Central School, Bareily as her father was an Aeronautical Engineer and served in Indian Air Force.

4. Obviously, the deceased did not have any income on the date of the accident. The Claims Tribunal after holding that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tata Tanker, bearing registration No.RJ-23G-0843 driven by Om Prakash (the Respondent No.4 in the main MAC APP.1094/2006 & MAC APP.1095/2006) relied on the judgments in Fateh Narain Hajela v. Rawal Singh, 1978 ACJ 345; Haji Zainullah Khan (Dead) by LR's v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, 1994 SSC 487; Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sudershan Yadav, 1995 ACJ 393; K. Murugesh v. M. Palappa, 1999 ACJ 1961; Dr. Harminder Singh v. Sukhpinder Singh, 1999 ACJ 512; M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, 2001 ACJ 1719; Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 2001 ACJ 1735; Vanitha B. Mehta v. Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation 2002 ACJ 2078; Smt. Kanta Bhandari v. Karam Ellahi, 113 (2004) Delhi Law Times 809; Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer 2004 ACJ 53; Assn. of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy v. Union of India Common Cause v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi II (2003) ACC 114 (DB), to hold that the potential income of a person pursuing a professional course can be taken into consideration to award the loss of dependency.

5. The Claims Tribunal accordingly took the deceased's potential income to be Rs.1,50,000/- per annum and awarded a compensation of Rs.8,85,000/- in each of the two cases.

6. The contention raised on behalf of the Appellants are twofold:

(i) The potential income of Rs.1,50,000/- taken by the Claims Tribunal was very low.

(ii) The multiplier applied was low, it should have been taken according to the age of the deceased's mother.

7. It was established during inquiry before the Claims Tribunal that the deceased were pursing Engineering in Communication / Information Technology from the prestigious Institution and they had an excellent educational record apart from participation in extra curricular activities. The Claims Tribunal referred to and relied on a number of decisions and took the income of Rs.1,50,000/- per annum or say Rs.12,500/- per month.

8. No evidence was adduced by the Appellants to show the placement offers in the relevant year or even in the year of the death of the deceased.

9. In the case of Haji Zainullah Khan (Dead) by Lrs. v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, 1994 (5) SCC 667, death of a young boy, aged 20 years took place in an accident which happened in the year 1972. The deceased was a student of B.Sc Ist year (Biology), a compensation of Rs.1,46,900/- was increased and rounded off to Rs. 1,50,000/-.

10. In Ganga Devi & Ors. v. New India Assurance