The assessment of notional income for compensation purposes must reflect educational merit and potential future earnings, particularly in cases involving young deceased individuals.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. SUDHA, J.

These appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the third respondent/insurer in O.P. (MV) Nos.777, 632, 635 & 698 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III, Thiruvananthapuram, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by the common Award dated 12/11/2019. The respondents in these appeals are the respective claim petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 in the petitions. In these appeals, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petitions.

2. According to the claim petitioners, namely, the legal representatives of the deceased students, on 25/03/2013, while the deceased were travelling in bus bearing registration no.KL26A5006 to Munnar, and when they reached the place of occurrence, the bus capsized due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent/driver as a result of which they sustained grievous injuries to which they succumbed.

3. The first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle filed written statement contending that the vehicle was having a valid insurance policy and that the second respondent/driver was having a valid licence.

4. The second respondent/driver remained ex parte.

5. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle, but denied liability. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive.

6. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A45 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents.

7. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs.34,82,000/- in OP(MV) No.777/2013 (MACA No.305/2020), Rs.34,02,000/- in OP(MV) No.632/2013 (MACA No.346/2020), Rs.34,02,000/- in OP(MV) No.635/2013 (MACA No.380/2020) and Rs.34,42,000/- in OP(MV) No.698/2013 (MACA No.2303/2020) together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petitions till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the third respondent/insurer has come up in appeal.

8. The only point that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

9. Heard both sides

10. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads is challenged by the third respondent/insurer -

Notional income

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the thirdrespondent/insurer that the notional income of 20,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is on the higher side and hence the same needs to be reduced. It is also submitted that in the light of proliferation of engineering colleges in the State, the employment opportunities of engineering graduates have come down drastically. It is only graduates from premium colleges like IIT who can command high salaries and so the income fixed needs to be reduced. In support of the argument, he relies on the dictums in Shakuntala v. Balraj, 2019 KHC 5508 : 2019 ACJ 3164, Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh, 2020 KHC 4939 : 2020 ACJ 2152 and Meena Pawaia v. Ashraf Ali, 2021 (6) KHC 596 . Per contra, it was quite persuasively submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the amount fixed by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and that the deceased, being final year engineering graduate students, would certainly have gotten Rs.20,000/- per month