Raj Kumar vs Vikas Chaudhary - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 3220

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 3220

RITU TAGORE
Raj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Vikas Chaudhary – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Susheel Gautam, Advocate for the Appellants
Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for Respondent No.3-Insurance Company

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Ritu Tagore, J. (Oral)

Appellants-claimants have challenged the award dated 25.08.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) on ground of inadequate compensation.

2. Deceased Chhaya, died in a motor vehicular accident dated 13.11.2016 caused by respondent No.1-driver while driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No.DL-8C-AC-7029, in a rash and negligent manner.

3. Claimants-parents filed a petition under sections 166 and 140 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondents (driver, owner and insurer) on appearance filed their respective pleadings. After the contest, the Tribunal granted Rs. 17,45,000/- as compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the claimants urged the Tribunal determined the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal, however, failed to take into consideration the age of deceased, that was 23 years and that she was a final year student of B.Sc. (Honours) Nursing, in Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur College of Nursing, University of Delhi. Even an entry level staff nurse in a Govt, college or in a public sector corporation, if recruit