IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the Tribunal's compensation award, emphasizing the importance of considering future earning potential and just compensation principles for qualified individuals in motor accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT)

(1) The present appeal is filed by the appellant - Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.V. Act"), against the judgment and award dated 28.02.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) & 4th Additional District Court, Jamnagar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 299 of 2015. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original positions.

Brief Facts of the Case

(2) The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

2.1 That on the fateful day, i.e., 07.06.2015, at about 11:00 PM, the deceased - Dr. Vaibhav Suresh Chandra Jain was travelling in Wagon-R car bearing registration number DL-9-CX-3712 which was dashed by truck bearing registration No.UP-93-T-9567, whereby, the car got completely burnt and the deceased - Dr. Vaibhav Jain sustained injuries and succumbed to it.

2.2 The original claimants (the widow of late Dr. Vaibhav and his parents) filed the claim petition and later on, after the death of widow of Dr. Vaibhav i.e., claimant No.1, her mother - Santosh Dhanendra Jain was substituted as claimant no.4. The claim petition was filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/- for the death of Dr. Vaibhav, which according to the claimants arising out of use of motor vehicle from the owner and insurance company of the truck and Wagon R car.

2.3 The appellant - herein is the original opponent no. 2, the insurer of the truck, whereas respondent no.6 herein is the original opponent no. 4 - Insurer of Wagon R car.

2.4 The deceased - Vaibhav was a doctor, who, after completing his graduation in medicine (MBBS), was pursuing higher studies i.e. Senior Student in Surgery. At relevant point of time, he was a senior student in surgery and was under residentship in R.N.T. Medical College at Udaipur, drawing a monthly stipend of Rs.48,094/-.

2.5 As per the case of the claimants, the deceased was brilliant in his studies. During his resident-ship of M.S. (Surgery), he was preparing to appear in the examination for M.C.H. (Urology) for super specialty. While going to appear in the examination of S.G.P.G.I., Lucknow for M.C.H. (Urology), unfortunately, he met with the accident in question and died untimely.

2.6 It is further the case of the complainant that deceased - Dr. Vaibhav was aged about 32 years, a promising doctor and earning Rs.80,000/ per month at the time of the accident, and on completion of his study, he would have easily earned a much higher amount than what he was earning at the time of the accident. Considering the potential earning capacity of the deceased and having lost a husband and son, the claimants have filed an application for compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/- from the opponents. The claimant, the widow of Dr. Vaibhav, was examined as Exh.44. It has emerged from the cross-examination of the claimant No.1 that at the time of the accident, she was pursuing her studies in the second year of Master of Medicine (MD) and earning a monthly stipend of Rs.28,000/ to Rs. 30,000/. She has admitted that in order to pursue further studies, the deceased took leave from his job at R.N.T. Medical College, Udaipur on January, 2015, and was staying with her at Jamnagar to appear in MCH, super specialty examination. She has candidly admitted that at the time of the accident, her husband did not receive any salary as he was on leave since January, 2015. It also emerged from her cross-examination that on the date of her cross-examination, i.e. 21st February, 2018, she was working as a senior resident doctor in a Delhi government hospital and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.1,10,000/. The necessary certificates and educational certificates of her husband are produced on record.

2.7 The opponents have appeared through their respective advocates and filed their written statements, except for opponent no. 3, who chooses not to appear and has not filed