The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for a deceased medical student involved in a motor vehicular accident, emphasizing the future income potential and referencing relevant legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

ALKA SARIN, J. - The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the award dtd. 27/7/2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the claimants filed a claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 stating therein that their 19 years old son Hardeep Singh was going on his motor cycle bearing No.PB-1-AT-0437 towards Y.P.S. Chowk, Patiala. He was followed by Ranjit Singh s/o Dar Amarjit Singh Cheema. When Hardeep Singh reached near the gate of Military Headquarter, Patiala then the offending Jeep bearing No.PB-57-8112 came from Y.P.S. Chowk, Patiala driving at a very high speed and on the wrong side of the road, and hit the motor-cycle of the deceased, Hardeep Singh. It was stated that the deceased was going on his motorcycle at a normal speed. The offending Jeep crushed the head of Hardeep Singh and he succumbed to his injuries at the spot. It was pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was a young man of 19 years of age and a second year student of MBBS studying in Rajindra Medical College and Hospital, Patiala. It was also averred that he was doing tuition job work and was earning Rs.8000.00 to Rs.10000.00 per month from tuition. It was further stated that the deceased was a topper and stood 3rd in PMT test in Ludhiana City. He was a very good football as well as cricket player. The claim petition was contested by respondent Nos.1 and 2 who filed their joint written statement denying that Hardeep Singh was 19 years of age and further that he was self-employed and was earning Rs.8000.00 to Rs.10000.00 per month. It was further averred that respondent No.1 had falsely been implicated in the case. Respondent No.3, alongwith the usual pleas, raised the plea that respondent No.1 was not driving the offending Jeep in the course of his employment with the owner and insured and as such the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. Further, it was stated that the offending Jeep was not having a valid registration certificate, route permit and fitness certificate at the time of the alleged accident.

3. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

1. Whether Hardeep Singh Sekhon died in Motor Vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of Jeep No.PB-57-8112 by respondent No.1 ? OPP

2. Whether the respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, if so, its effects ? OPR

3. Whether Hardeep Singh deceased was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident, if so, its effects ? OPR

4. To what amount and from whom, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation ? OPP

5. Relief.

4. The Tribunal on issue No.1 held that the accident stood proved resulting in the death of Hardeep Singh. Qua the amount of compensation, the Tribunal awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants while relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi Vs. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma & Anr. [2014 (4) RCR (Civil) 543] has contended that in a similar case where the deceased was 19 years of age and was pursuing the professional course of medicine and had died in a motor vehicular accident, the notional income of the deceased was assessed as Rs.25, 000.00 per month. Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Adarsh Gupta & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors. [2021 SCC OnLine J&K 732] to contend that in the said case also the deceased was a medical student and the Court relying upon the judgment of Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi's case (supra) had assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.25, 000.00 per month. Learned counsel would further contend that based on the notional income, multiplier of 18 and future prospects @ 40% ought to have been applied. Further, no amount has been awarded under the conven