The main legal point established in the judgment is that the deceased, a student of Bachelor of Engineering, should not have been treated as a skilled labour/daily wager for the purpose of compensation calculation, and the compensation award should be re-computed based on his educational qualification and age, applying the principles established in the judgments of Smt. Meena Pawaia and Pranay Sethi.

JUDGMENT

anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - The present civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants-claimants aggrieved with the judgment and award dated 26.04.2012 passed by the Court of Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Motor accident Claim Case No. 87/12 (816/2005), whereby an amount of Rs. 3,72,700/- has been awarded by way of compensation on account of death of anurag Meena in an accident occurred on 08.06.2004.

2. The Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the appellants-claimants awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.3,72,700/- under various heads in favour of the appellants-claimants.

3. The issue involved in this appeal is that- 'Whether a Bachelor aged 22 years, studying in 3rd year, Bachelor of Engineering would be treated as skilled labour/daily wager?'

4. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the deceased at the time of accident was a Bachelor aged 22 years and was studying in 3rd year of Bachelor of Engineering in Electrical. The original claimants- mother, father, brother and sister of the deceased filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming Rs. 44,05,000/- as compensation on different heads. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the Tribunal has seriously erred in treating the deceased as a skilled worker and treating him as a daily wager determined his income as Rs. 4,030/- per month. Counsel for the appellants-claimants further submitted that the deceased at the time of accident was 22 years of age and was studying in Bachelor of Engineering, so, with no stretch of imagination he can be treated as a skilled worker or a daily wager.

5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has placed reliance upon the recent judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Meena Pawaia and Others Vs. ashraf ali and Others, reported in 2022 (1) RaR, in which the Hon'ble apex Court has determined the income of a 22 years aged, student of Bachelor of Engineering as Rs. 10,000/- who met with an accident in the year 2012.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants further submitted that each of the deceased were 22 years of age and the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15. While as per the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. : (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier of 18 should have been applied looking to the age of the deceased that was 22 years on the date of accident.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants further submits that no amount towards future prospect has been awarded by the Tribunal in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Lastly, counsel for the appellants-claimants argued that under the conventional head, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- only, hence, the impugned award needs suitable enhancement.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the appellants-claimants has correctly taken into consideration the factors while calculating the award in this case after evaluating the evidence produced before it. Counsel for the Insurance Company further submits that the deceased was simply a student, so he cannot be treated as a professional. Counsel further submits that the Tribunal has rightly treated his income as Rs. 4,030/- by treating him as a skilled worker. Counsel also submits that even the minimum wages as assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side, as the minimum wages in the year 2004 were less. Lastly, counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the impugned