1. The appellants have lost their only son in a tragic road accident which took place on 5-10-1998 at Janipur, Jammu. Appellants preferred claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and analyzing the evidence produced, awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,72,000/- plus Rs. 5,000/- as funeral charges. The claimants were not satisfied with this award and have challenged the same before this Court.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The deceased was a student of 3rd year MBBS course and it is revealed from the record that he was brilliant student and came from the respectable middle class family. He was selected for the MBBS course after having successfully qualified the entrance examination. The academic career of the deceased was brilliant. He was expected to do well in the studies and also in his profession. His future prospects were good looking at his academic background. He could have easily procured his employment on the basis of merit. The statement of Dr. A.K. Jad reveals that he would get pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/- per month. The Tribunal has wrongly assessed his income at Rs. 2,000/- per month.

4. Death of a dear one in the family causes a lot of pain and anguish to its members and dead person could not be brought back. The family can be compensated by awarding damages. Many factors have to be considered before awarding compensation in such cases. The deceased in the present case was a 3rd year student of MBBS course. He was a brilliant student and had obtained admission in the Medical College by way of competitive examination.

5. It is a matter of common knowledge that once a student is admitted to a professional college then he would come out after getting the professional degree. The deceased would have become a doctor after coming out from the college and could get minimum pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/-, which a doctor gets after his appointment in the State Government. It is also expected that he would have studied further. Measures of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and the attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of just compensation which is the pivotal consideration. The determination of damages for loss of human life, is an extremely difficult task and it becomes all the more baffling when the deceased is a child and or a non-earning person. The future of a child is uncertain. He only has a prospect to earn his future. Applying this to the present case, the deceased admittedly was unemployed but had a certain future. He was in all probabilities to become a doctor and it could not be said that his future was uncertain. What would he earn after the completion of graduation, cannot be merely a guess work. But while applying principles of determination of just compensation, we have to adopt probable standards in determining the job. In all the likelihood he would start from the minimum pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/- per month, which is the basic grade of a doctor.

6. The next question is what were the expectations of the claimants from the deceased. It is not in dispute that he was only son of his parents and their expectancy and dependency was only on him. No doubt his father is a Government employee and was to retire from the service after 8 years from the date his son was died. It is necessary that the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit should be entertained by the person who sues. It is quite true that the existence of this expectation is an interference of fact.

7. The Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2000 ACJ 524. It was a case of the Engineering student who had died in a road accident. The income of the deceased was assessed Rs. 2,000/- and by applying the multiplie

Click Here to Read the rest of this document