Proper determination of notional income and future prospects for deceased individuals pursuing professional degrees.

JUDGMENT :

Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J.

C.M.A. No. 1800 of 2019 is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the award dated 20.03.2018 in M.C.O.P. No. 101 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Pollachi.

2. C.M.A. No. 2314 of 2018 is filed by the claimants against the very same award dated 20.03.2018 in M.C.O.P. No. 101 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Pollachi, for enhancement of compensation.

3. Since both the appeals arise out of the same accident and award, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.

4. The parties are referred to as per their rank in the claim petition for the sake of convenience.

5. According to the claimants, on 19.06.2009, the deceased S.Harihara Sudhan, along with his friends, were travelling in Innova 2.5G Car bearing Registration No.AP-09-BQ-0250, to participate in a marriage party. The car belong to the 4th respondent and driven by the 3rd respondent during night time on 19.06.2009. After attending the party, on 20.06.2009, at 4.00 a.m., they were proceeding towards Ohris Hotel, in Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. On reaching a place called Kaman in Road No.12, Banjara Hills, the said Innova car was driven by the 3rd respondent in a rash and negligent manner. In the curved area, the 3rd respondent could not control the car, and dashed against an Electric pole which is situated in front of Audi car show room. In the impact, the car once again dashed against Road Divider, as a result of which, the car over turned on western side of the road and came to a halt. In the accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

6. In connection with the aforesaid accident on 19.06.2009, which resulted in the death of the deceased, the claimants filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 101 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Pollachi, claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation.

7. On behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company, a counter statement has been filed before the Tribunal contending inter alia that the age, income and occupation of the deceased as stated by the respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition are required to be proved by the claimants by acceptable evidence. The Insurance Company, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

8. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/father of the deceased examined himself as P.W.1 and one Mr. Pranavsingaar was examined as P.W.2, and Exs.P1 to P18 were marked. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company, neither oral nor documentary evidence has been adduced.

9. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Innova Car belonging 4th respondent and directed the appellant appellant/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.20,70,100/- as compensation to the respondents 1 and 2/claimants.

10. As against the award passed by the Tribunal both these appeals are filed by the Insurance Company as well as the claimants.

11. Thiru S. Arun Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted the amount awarded by the Tribunal is extremely on the higher side. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,70,100/- for the death of the deceased in the fatal accident without considering the oral and documentary evidence filed by the claimant. The deceased was a student pursuing Engineering College and he is a non-earning member. The Tribunal also did not take note of the fact that the employability of the deceased, even after he completes Engineering Decree is not imminent and therefore also, the fixation of the amount of Rs.19,44,000/- towards loss of dependency and awarding 50% towards future prospects are liable to be interfered with by this Court.

12. The learned counsel for the resp